Hansard, 1996-03-11

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 5th to 6th March, 1996. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 6th to 7th March, 1996. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 6th to 7th March, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 6th to 8th March, 1996. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 6th to 7th March, 1996. Dr Ong Chit Chung - on 11th March, 1996. Mr Peter Sung - from 14th to 21st March, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Communications what measures are being taken to prevent or alleviate the increasing number of accidents involving buses, which have been hazardous to commuters and pedestrians.

asked the Minister for Communications what are the reasons for the spate of accidents involving SBS buses in the last few months and what action has been taken to remedy the situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to take the first two Questions together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, in the first two months of this year, there were nine major traffic accidents involving SBS buses that attracted widespread public attention and concern. The Traffic Police has completed its investigations of these accidents. The investigations revealed that the accidents were due to human error and not to mechanical defects. Although the nine accidents received considerable media publicity, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police records indicate that they do not represent a worsening trend. The accident rate for SBS buses for the first two months of this year is 0.96 accidents per 100,000 km. This is about the same as the accident rate for last year. In comparison with other large urban public transport operators world-wide, for example, Hong Kong (1.8 accidents per 100,000 km), Paris (9.7 accidents per 100,000 km) and UK (0.34 accidents per 100,000 km), SBS' safety record is relatively good. Nevertheless, in view of the recent spate of serious accidents, SBS has instituted further measures to enhance its safety record. The new safety programmes that SBS has implemented recently should help to increase safety awareness amongst bus drivers. The LTA will continue to monitor the situation and will ensure that all the necessary corrective and preventive measures are taken to reduce the number of serious accidents.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that the drivers are expected to work long hours, particularly in one of the shifts, eg, starting at about 4.30 am and another shift starting at 5.00 am, and some of these shifts finish at 4.30 pm or even 8.00 pm (12-15 hours). Are the drivers overworked in this respect?

Sir, driver fatigue has been suggested as one of the factors contributing to these accidents. I cannot rule out this possibility and, in fact, because of the tight labour market, SBS has been facing tremendous difficulty in recruiting good bus drivers. Currently, there is a shortage of 300-400 drivers. Because the company has a responsibility to meet basic bus service standards and to improve its level of service, including extending its road network to cover new areas, SBS bus drivers have been asked to take on greater responsibilities and work longer hours, as suggested by the Member. As I said, the specific causes of these various accidents have been investigated and the Traffic Police has made its conclusions and will be releasing its results. Whether it is due specifically to driver fatigue is not known. The point is, according to SBS, some of the accidents had happened at the beginning of shifts rather than at the end of shifts, and some of the accidents had happened after a rest day rather than at the end of a long period of rostered work. Therefore, in the case of the nine accidents, there is no correlation between driver fatigue and the accidents. But it is a cause for concern that some of the drivers are working long hours and this is something that the SBS management must look into and I believe it is looking into.

Sir, may I ask the Minister what is the average number of hours worked by the bus drivers per week and on a daily basis? As the Minister has said, the accidents could be due to human error or fatigue. May I also ask the Minister whether there are plans to limit the number of hours that the drivers have to drive at a stretch before they need to rest and to limit the number of hours of overtime work per day or per week?

The average number of hours worked per day is something like 9-9 1/2 hours. This is on a continuous basis but in between there are rest periods. The question is whether the rest periods are sufficient and this is determined by the rosters and schedules that the bus drivers are given. SBS and the unions are having another look at the schedules. Schedules are looked at on a regular basis but in view of these concerns they are re-looking at the schedules again to see whether there is sufficient rest time. In so far as whether we will limit the number of hours worked, at the moment there is no reason for us to limit the number of hours worked, including overtime hours, because there is no positive correlation between the number of hours worked and the accidents. As I said, the accident rate has not shown a worsening trend. The number of hours worked and the rosters have not been any different from those in the past. The drivers have been working these hours and they have been working on the rosters that they are currently working today. The implication of this is that SBS should relook at some of these working conditions, including the terms and conditions of service so that it is able to minimise the number of overtime hours of work. To require them to cut down the number of hours worked immediately as a result of this will inevitably mean a curtailment of service because it is not possible for them to be able to recruit this number of drivers. So there has to be a very conscious effort made on the part of the management to make sure that drivers are properly trained and there are sufficient measures in place to ensure that the drivers adhere to traffic rules. Ultimately it is also important for all road users to cooperate with the drivers on the road to make sure there is as low a traffic accident rate as possible on our roads.

Sir, may I ask the Minister how many of these drivers who were involved in the recent spate of bus accidents were work permit holders?

Sir, I do not have that information available to me.

Sir, I am quite happy to note that there is no correlation between worker fatigue and the accidents of late. But what is alarming is that I am given to understand that there are about 33% Malaysians working in Singapore, many of whom stay in Johor Baru. Let us say they work in the morning shift at 4.30 ---

Mr Sinnakaruppan, could you ask your question?

Yes. I want to ask the Minister, if some of the workers leave their house at 3.00 am or 3.30 am and reach home at 10.00 pm, how much rest can they have? Therefore, in future, this could lead to a lot more problems. As the Minister has just said, because of a shortage of bus drivers, the present workforce is asked to work longer hours. I see that this problem could get worse and it could possibly result in more accidents.

Sir, the starting point is that we must determine whether there is a direct positive correlation between the number of hours worked, the fact that they are Malaysian drivers, the fact that their rosters are as long as they are today, and the current nine accidents, before we can make those conclusions. Having said that, it is a fact that there are a lot of drivers who are on work permit at the moment. This is a result of the inability of SBS to recruit more Singaporeans to drive buses. It is not an easy job. The pay and the working conditions must be commensurate and must be attractive enough to draw Singaporeans to work in this kind of job. But, as the Member may be aware, in Singapore today there is a very tight labour market. There are many alternative jobs. There are many alternative jobs even in the transportation sector, whether it is driving taxis or container trucks. Therefore, it is important for SBS to recognise this and to do something about this. But there will always be this need for foreign workers on work permits for quite a long time to come in this particular sector. I am not aware of the exact number but it is close to 20-30%. I do not think it is as high as 33%. But if SBS wants to recruit more drivers, it would have to do so by making a fundamental review of its terms and conditions of service.

The Minister has quoted figures to show that Paris and Hong Kong have the worst bus accident records than Singapore. I have two questions. Surely, the important thing is whether or not Paris and Hong Kong have a world-class transport system or have they proclaimed to have one. The second question is: although the Minister says that our figure is quite low (0.96 accidents per 100,000 km), will the Minister say that even such a figure is not acceptable and he will take steps to reduce it, at least to the UK level?

Let me correct the Member for Potong Pasir. First of all, we have not achieved our objective of having a world-class transport system. This is an objective that we have set ourselves. This is an objective that we will have to take many, many years to achieve. At the moment, there are things in our public transport system that are not satisfactory and I have said this many times. But to say that and to link it with the current spate of accidents, I think, is stretching his licence as an Opposition Member a little bit too far. Yes, I agree that the accident rate can be further reduced. Every accident that takes place must be a source of anguish and pain for everybody concerned, not just for the victims but it must be so for the drivers, the management and for all of us who are directly or indirectly involved in public transportation. This is not something to be taken lightly. But the point I want to make is that SBS has taken measures. It has viewed these accidents with concern. The authorities have expressed their concern in no uncertain terms. We have asked them to take steps to further improve the situation. Can the accident rate be reduced further? I believe it can, in the same way that the public transport operators in Singapore have reduced their accident rates over the years. Surely, they can reduce it further and I strongly believe, if they take the steps that they are taking, that it will be reduced further. So it is incumbent upon all of us who are involved to reduce the accident rate to as low as is humanly possible. I cited those figures to show that in comparison with other urban public transport operators, our public transport operators are not doing too badly. They are not the worst; they are not the best either. Therefore, there is always room for improvement.

I would like to ask the Minister, given the fact that very few Singaporeans take up the job as bus drivers, and the fact that the Chairman of SBS has announced that bus drivers get about 20% less than other transport operators, taxis and so on, would SBS consider increasing the remuneration for bus drivers?

Sir, this is something for the SBS management and unions to consider together with all the other necessary measures that would have to be taken in order to minimise the rate of accidents.

Sir, may I ask the Minister, since there may be some difficulty in getting local workers, whether there is a limit in the percentage of foreign workers that can be employed as bus drivers, and if this percentage is too small, whether he should ask the Labour Minister to increase the number, so that we can have more bus drivers to cater for the industry.

Sir, there is a limit at the moment to the number of foreign workers that can be employed by SBS as bus drivers, in the same way as there are limits or quotas to the number of work permit holders in other industries. I think this is something that we would have to proceed very cautiously if we were to lift the limit or remove the cap. Public transport or bus services is an essential industry. It is something that we want to make sure continues to have as many Singaporeans as possible. Recognising that it is not possible to have a 100% Singaporean workforce, the Labour Ministry has allowed SBS to employ foreign workers. It is sufficient at the moment because I believe the quota for foreign workers, as far as SBS is concerned, has not been reached yet. So I do not think there is a necessity to lift the quota. I do not think the question arises at this stage. But the important thing is to make sure that the terms and conditions of service are sufficiently attractive for as many bus drivers as possible as are needed in order to provide the kind of service that Singaporeans expect of them.

To allay the fears of bus commuters in Singapore, will the Government take immediate measures to try and cut down this rate of accidents caused by SBS buses? With a view to improving the situation, will the Government ask the bus companies to review the salary of the bus drivers?

Sir, let me cite a list of the measures that are being taken by the bus company as a result of the recent spate of accidents. First of all, there will be another safety inspection of interchanges and terminals where all interchanges and terminals will undergo a comprehensive check to make sure that all the necessary safety features are in place and adequate. All new buses supplied since 1988 are fitted with speed limiters. In view of this spate of accidents, SBS will retrofit all the other buses with speed limiters. As I indicated earlier, a special exercise is now going on to check all schedules to ensure that there is adequate running and lay overtime. This is on top of the on-going periodic reviews of the schedules which are based on actual operations and which are done in consultation with the union. There will be a review of the drivers' salary scale. The terms and conditions of service for drivers will be reviewed to bring them more in line with the market rate. There will be a new accident-free incentive allowance to recognise and reward good and safe drivers. I think we must not forget that the majority of the drivers on the road are good drivers; they are safe drivers. Enforcement action against speeding and careless reversing has been stepped up. Traffic staff at interchanges have been reminding drivers on a daily basis to drive safely. An intensive campaign is under-way to enforce safe driving. Specifically, drivers are asked to drive at a safe speed, keep a safe distance from the front vehicle, whenever in doubt, apply brakes to slow down, to stop the bus, etc. Drivers' safety drills at junctions and pedestrian crossings have been introduced. Preparation is also being finalised for a safety dialogue between depot management and drivers in smaller groups. Finally, a series of activities to promote safety consciousness amongst bus passengers is also being planned. So I think the Member will appreciate that from this list of measures that are being taken, the authorities have asked the SBS to leave no stone unturned to make sure that the recent series of accidents that have caused public concern are minimised, if not eliminated.

Sir, according to the list of steps the bus company has taken, it would appear that the most important one has been left out. The accidents are caused by human error. Surely they must study why there is such human error. I think that is the most important point, and they do not seem to include such studies whether or not the bus driver was under stress or worried about the family, or whatever factor that causes the human error. They should make a study of it.

Sir, in so far as the specific accidents are concerned, the Traffic Police is the authority that is investigating the accidents. When the final report of the investigation is published, the Member will have another chance to ask any question that he may wish. But on that point alone, let me go further and tell this House what SBS drivers undergo as far as training is concerned. For new drivers, there is training for 12 days for class 4A licence. There is a 23-day familiarisation course after this. There is a 33-day induction course after this. For refresher courses, drivers after three years of service are sent for a 3-day training course where their driving habits are picked up and where other corrective measures are taken. Then, in so far as the current training courses are concerned, these measures, including situation training, anti-stress training, training using simulators, are also being looked at and these will be done by a team of training experts from overseas. They will be invited to look into SBS' training programmes and see how improvements can be made.

asked the Minister for Labour, in view of the increasing prices of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, whether he will allow HDB flat purchasers to top up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings in the Ordinary Accounts with their savings in the Special Accounts when the need arises, so that they can pay the HDB monthly loan instalments with their CPF.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Special Account forms part of every CPF member's account. Out of the total employer's and employee's contribution of 40%, 4 percentage points are credited to the Special Account. Savings in the Special Account cannot be used for servicing housing loan or investment purposes. This is to ensure that a CPF member will be able to accumulate some cash savings to meet his or her old age requirement. The cash savings in the Special Account will help many CPF members to satisfy the cash component of the revised Minimum Sum Scheme. Since the savings in the Special Account cannot be withdrawn for other purposes, Government has since 1st July 1995 paid a higher rate of interest on the Special Account savings. The premium is 1.25% more than the interest rate for the rest of the CPF savings. Sir, if the savings in the Special Account are routinely transferred for mortgage repayment, then we will not be able to achieve the objective of meeting CPF members' retirement needs. Nevertheless, we have under special circumstances allowed CPF members to use the Special Account savings for mortgage repayment. Members may recall that when the CPF rate was cut back by 15 percentage points in 1986 during the last economic downturn, CPF members were indeed allowed to use their Special Account savings to supplement mortgage repayments from their Ordinary Account savings. However, this practice was stopped in 1991 with the restoration of the CPF contribution rate to 40%.

Sir, is the Minister aware that there are cases of flat purchasers who at the time of making a booking for a flat had enough money in the Ordinary Account to purchase the flat and also to pay for subsequent monthly loan instalments but, due to a delay or extended time, by the time they purchase the flat, it has already increased in price, and therefore the savings in the Ordinary Accounts are all exhausted to pay for the flat and the cash in hand is used to renovate the flat? Therefore, they have not enough savings in the Ordinary Account to pay for the monthly loan instalments. So they may need money from the Special Account to tide over, maybe for the first few instalments, so that they could save up enough to pay for subsequent monthly loan instalments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there may well be some home buyers who face the situation described by Mr Chiam. But as Mr Chiam himself pointed out, many of these people would have money for renovation but yet they say that they have inadequate CPF savings to meet the mortgage repayment. I would suggest that this is a matter of priority - which should come first? Purchase the home and then renovate it at some later stage when you have more money or to proceed immediately for renovation now and to draw on the Special Account savings which are meant for very long term old-age retirement needs? I think we have to ask ourselves what was the original objective of the Special Account. It was to enable CPF members to put aside some cash savings, so that when they reach the age of 55, there will always be some cash savings which can go towards forming their retirement account under the Minimum Sum Scheme. If we allow this money to be withdrawn to meet mortgage repayment while the member spends his cash savings on renovation, then we are really eroding this effort to meet the retirement needs of the member, and I think in the long run it is not at all prudent to do so. We have debated extensively on the merits of the Minimum Sum Scheme. We should try our best to help members to accumulate sufficient cash savings so that they can meet all the requirements of the Minimum Sum Scheme.

Is the Minister suggesting that a flat purchaser move into the flat without renovating the flat? In practice, I think you can hardly find one person who would move in without renovating the flat. In such circumstances, can the Minister not make a provision for payments to be paid out of the Special Account?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that you move in without any renovation. I think it is a question of how extensive and how much money you want to spend on the renovation. If indeed you are short of a couple of payments on your mortgage loan, as the Member himself suggested earlier on, then maybe you could save on some of the other renovation items in order to make sure that you can meet these payments. Arising from this question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked my officers to check with HDB whether this is in fact a serious problem. The answer is that in 1995, the average sale price of a 4-room flat, for example, which was sold by HDB was around $125,000. These are flats in non-mature estate. We found that a person with a household income of about $1,753 could buy such a flat with a mortgage loan of 80% repayable over 25 years. At this rate of repayment, the person is not consuming more than 25% of the household income, in which case the ordinary saving component of the husband and wife's income will be more than sufficient to meet the mortgage repayment. And therefore, it is not a problem to the vast majority of the home buyers in Singapore. In fact, 93% of all HDB home buyers, who are servicing their mortgage loan with CPF or cash, are able to do so from their CPF savings. In other words, 93% meet all their mortgage repayments completely from their CPF savings. There is very little need for them to top up with cash.

Sir, what about flat purchasers, who have already budgeted what they already have in their Ordinary Accounts but could not meet the repayments because of increased prices in the flat? That is why they fall short.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when a person applies to buy a flat, he has to take into account that there is a potential for some price increases. He cannot say that because he wants to buy a home at this price and when the price has gone up, we must change the whole rules of the game. It is quite clear that when he applies to buy a flat, he knows that he can only use the savings in his Ordinary Account. He should size the flat that he intends to buy on that basis, taking into account there is a potential for price increase or adjustment in the future. Investing in a home is a long-term investment. All of us are obliged to make careful calculation and consideration on the size or type of flat that we want to buy to make sure that we can afford it and we can service the mortgage repayments.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the reasons for the traffic jam during peak periods at the Singapore immigration end of the Singapore Johor Causeway and what will be done to have a smoother flow of traffic, especially during peak periods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one main reason for the congestion is a significant increase in the number of travellers passing through the Woodlands Checkpoint. In 1990, the daily average was about 176,000 travellers. This increased to 195,000 in 1994 and 203,000 in 1995. This is an increase of more than 15% over the last five years. There are also now more travellers who are not Malaysians and not Singaporeans using the Causeway. Compared to the previous year, the number of this group of travellers increased by 19%. Given the large number of travellers and those who drive through the Causeway every day, some traffic congestion is inevitable, especially during the peak hours. Singapore Immigration has taken measures to ease the congestion problem as much as possible and as far as it is feasible. For example, a new checking area with 12 lanes for clearance of motorcycles was introduced in May 1994. Since its implementation, the traffic situation at the Woodlands Checkpoint in the morning has improved significantly. The traffic flow is now smoother. To meet the ever increasing number of travellers using the Woodlands Checkpoint, the Immigration Department would also be embarking on a new pilot project called auto clearance by giving frequent travellers a smart card and let them travel through the Causeway almost hassle-free. But this is a pilot project which we will only launch next month to try out the system. And if this system works, then of course those who travel frequently to Malaysia will find it very convenient to travel through the Causeway. The congestion at the Checkpoint is essentially due to the Checkpoint's current inadequate capacity to deal with the crowd and the heavy flow during the peak periods from 5.00 to 8.00 in the evening when many vehicles want to depart for Malaysia at the same time. Whatever measures we take can only bring about minimal improvement to the present situation. But the situation will improve substantially when a new Checkpoint is built in Woodlands and that will be in a couple of years' time and also when the second link at Tuas is completed. So with two places to cross between Singapore and Malaysia, I think the traffic flow will improve substantially in 1997 or 1998. Meanwhile, the Immigration Department, together with the Police, will continue to monitor the situation and take all the necessary measures to improve clearance speed. When there is a substantial jam or congestion during the peak periods, the Police will increase its manpower to try to clear the traffic. While the Immigration Department will do its best, we have to expect that congestion will continue to occur. The only way of not having congestion is not to check people at the Causeway. From the security point of view, this is totally unacceptable.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he is satisfied with the existing security arrangements at the Criminal Investigation Department lock-up and whether any enhanced measures are being contemplated.

Sir, existing security measures at the CID lock-up are adequate to prevent detained persons from escaping. However, in view of a recent incident, CID is considering implementing additional measures to prevent a recurrence of the incident. Sir, first, let me describe some of the existing measures. The main gate of the CID lock-up can only be opened from the outside. The main gate leads to the lock-up area which has cells for holding accused persons, a common bathing area and some ancillary rooms on both sides of the corridor. Under no circumstances will the key to the main gate be brought into the lock-up. The lock-up is monitored through closed circuit cameras. Also, no weapons are allowed into the lock-up. This measure ensures that persons detained will not have access to any weapon if they manage to overpower any officer. Sir, the two accused persons who recently attempted to escape from the CID lock-up are facing capital charges. Hence, they are desperate people. In the incident, one of the accused persons was being escorted to his cell from the common bathing area after a bath. When the cell door was opened, he, together with his cell mate, overpowered the officers in the lock-up. Sir, with the present structure of the CID lock-up, movement of persons within the lock-up is unavoidable. CID is looking into ways to minimise the movement of detained persons drawing from lessons learnt in their post-mortem of the incident.

asked the Minister for Labour whether there has been an increase in the number of foreigners found working illegally in the entertainment sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. My Ministry has been conducting more inspections to detect and deter illegal employment in the entertainment sector. The number of inspections in the entertainment sector had increased by four-fold between 1994 and 1995. As a result, the number of illegal foreign workers in the entertainment sector caught in 1995 was 130 compared to 25 in 1994. We will continue to monitor the situation in this sector closely.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider allowing an unmarried person, under 35 years of age, to be the sole lessee of an existing flat which was inherited by him and his sibling upon the death of their parents and, with the marriage of the sibling, leaving him as the sole occupier.

Mr Cheo cited a situation in which two siblings inherited an HDB flat upon the death of their parents. Now one of the siblings is married and intends to move out of the flat, leaving behind the remaining sibling as the sole occupier. The issue is whether the remaining sibling qualifies to be the sole owner and occupier of the HDB flat. To optimise the use of the limited land resource in Singapore, a proper family nucleus is made one of the eligibility conditions for owning an HDB flat. Single person households, unless the single person is more than 35 years old, are not allowed to own HDB flats. If we allow single person households to own HDB flats liberally, this would lead to an under-utilisation of HDB flats. Therefore, the remaining unmarried sibling cannot own and occupy the HDB flat on his own.

( In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees that in the circumstances cited, it will be unreasonable for HDB to take back the flat. A single person below the age of 35 cannot apply for a HDB flat, or even to purchase a HDB flat from the open market. As we all know private properties are very expensive ---

Order. Mr Cheo, are you making a speech? Could you proceed to ask your question?

( In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in the circumstances I have cited, if we do not allow the single person to continue occupying the flat will we not make him homeless, suffer inconvenience and increase his financial burden because private properties are so expensive? I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question.

Sir, Mr Cheo need not be concerned that HDB will compulsorily acquire the flat. Time and opportunity are given to persons in such circumstances to find accommodation, or to invite somebody else who is eligible to join him to occupy the flat, or to move out to live with his sibling who has married. In all these cases, if he wishes to sell his flat, he can do so.

( In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that if a person is asked to move out, it will cause him great inconvenience because he has to move a lot of things out of the flat and he has probably spent a lot of money renovating the flat. He has to start all over again. Why can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not consider allowing such people to continue occupying the flat? It is fait accompli. It is already an accomplished fact that we must accept. On the other hand, there are not many such cases. So it would not affect the general policy of the Government.

Sir, Mr Cheo suggests that it is very disruptive for a person to move to another place of accommodation. There are more than 30,000 transactions a year where people move from one flat to another flat and there are lots of renovation going on, some very costly, and the people seem to be doing this rather than staying where they are all the time. So this may not be a big concern at all and he should not be worried about it. He suggests that since the numbers are small, we should accommodate them. The point is not whether the numbers are big or small. The point is the principle that we want to establish here. Sir, HDB does not build accommodation. HDB builds homes for families, for people to bring up their families in a clean, hygienic and conducive environment for the development of their children. If we agree to this principle, then we should build more homes for family units. For single people in those circumstances, we will try to accommodate them in whatever way we can within their circumstances. But on Mr Cheo's first concern whether we will acquire those flats, we will not.

( In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary this question. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not agree that such single persons will also get married eventually? So why must he cause him the trouble of moving house in the first place? The next question is: From the legal point of view, there are many circumstances which are not specially created because of a natural course of events, for example, the parents have passed away and the flat is handed down to the children, or one of the children gets married while the other is unmarried, etc. So in circumstances of this nature, I think special consideration should be given. This does not involve the question of principle at all.

Sir, Mr Cheo is pursuing his line of questioning on a wrong premise. We do not force people to move out of their flats.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether he will amend the guidelines to hold pasar malam by giving equal treatment to all grassroots organisations and Town Councils in its allocation of pasar malam quota and to stop its practice of allocating two years' pasar malam quota at one time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, each constituency is allowed to have only one major fair a year with a maximum duration of 16 days. In addition, each Residents' Committee is allowed a 3-day fair every year. Every constituency has the same allocation and receives equal treatment. Three groups are eligible to apply as the organiser of the major fair. They are the Town Council, Citizens' Consultative Committee and the Community Centre Management Committee. My Ministry has allowed some flexibility in the guidelines I have just mentioned. If an organiser wishes to hold a fair that stretches for more than 16 days, he can use the following year's quota. Then the maximum duration of the fair will be 32 days. Alternatively, if a fair was not organised in the previous year, he can carry over that year's quota. As the guidelines have worked well, my Ministry will not be amending them.

When was this flexibility implemented for holding major fairs, whereby a town council, CCC or CCMC can use two years' quota to organise a fair?

Sir, this flexibility was given at the request of fair organisers who felt that 16 days in one given year may be too restrictive. So when several of these organisations asked for this flexibility, my Ministry acceded to them. It was more than a year ago.

If this flexibility is not changed, would the Minister not agree that in opposition constituencies, the opposition town councils will be shut out forever? They would not get a chance to hold fairs to raise funds. In the light of funds not being granted to town councils by the CIPC, how are they going to raise funds for their community work?

I am not quite sure how Mr Chiam has connected together all these variegated ideas. First of all, I think he is wrong in saying that opposition town councils have not organised fairs. Opposition town councils have indeed organised fairs since this policy was introduced in July 1994 and these are in Nee Soon Central and Hougang. So they have held some fairs. Sir, my other point is that all the constituencies are treated equally. Therefore, all the constituents in these constituencies are treated in the same way.

Sir, I wish to correct the Minister. Is the Minister aware that the Hougang Town Council has not organised any fairs so far? The reason is that the quota was taken up by the CCC because they were given this flexibility. May I request the Minister to reconsider this flexibility so that, strictly, each constituency can only use 16 days a year, rather than allowing the CCC, CCMC or whoever to stretch the period. The other supplementary question is this. I would like to know the quota period stretches from which month of the year to which month of the following year?

Sir, on the first point, I wish to make a clarification. Mr Low is correct. Potong Pasir Town Council and Bukit Gombak Town Council have organised fairs and he is correct that Nee Soon Central and Hougang have not organised fairs, although the grassroots organisations have organised fairs since July 1994. As I said, the flexibility is given so that we are not so rigid. The Government is always accused of being very rigid. In this case, when we have given some flexibility, we are being asked to remove that flexibility. I really see no reason why we should pursue this particular line. Secondly, I repeat, the rules that have been laid down are to treat every constituency in the same way. I see no reason why town councils should be treated separately.

Is it not true that grassroots organisations formed by Opposition Members of Parliament are treated differently? In other words, pasar malams are only allowed to be organised by grassroots organisations like RCs. My constituency's committee which is a grassroots organisation was excluded.

Sir, this is not the first time that Mr Low has pursued this line of questioning. This was also pursued in the budget debate last year and I think the answer has been given quite comprehensively. But I would like to say that if all the organisations within a given constituency are able to work smoothly with each other, then the constituents will be better served. For example, I know town councils which work very well together with the RCs and the CCCs to organise functions jointly to serve the needs of their constituents. Naturally, the constituents are well served in that sense. I think we should not be seeking to change the rules merely to benefit one particular type of organisation, in this case, the town council.

Does the Minister agree that by changing the rule from 1st July 1995, it will shut off organisations like opposition grassroots organisations in organising pasar malams? They were allowed to organise fairs before the rule was changed.

Sir, as I said, Potong Pasir Town Council and Bukit Gombak Town Council have organised pasar malams since 1st July 1994.

Sir, my question is grassroots organisations and not town councils.

Sir, there are recognised grassroots organisations in each constituency. These recognised grassroots organisations are allowed to organise pasar malams, but it is not within my Ministry's purview to determine which organisations are recognised and which are not.

Sir, I would like to take up my supplementary question which I asked just now about the quota period. When is it open for application? How does the quota work? How does it stretch from one year to another?

Sir, the quota year is from July to June of a given year and applications can be submitted not earlier than two months before the commencement of each fair. As I have explained, a constituency can ask for next year's quota to be used in the current year. But then, of course, that constituency will not be able to organise a fair the next year. Alternatively, if a constituency has not organised a fair in the previous year, then it can carry forward the quota to the current year.

Sir, how does the Minister determine equality in respect of allocation of major pasar malams? Is he going to count the number of major pasar malams given to the town council and then an equal number given to the CCC or CCMC? If that is the case, which is the starting period? How can he determine equality? I just cannot understand the Minister.

Sir, I have already explained the qualifying periods, the times and how the quota is allocated. I am not sure which part Mr Chiam does not understand. In any case, I should reiterate the reasons why we introduced this rule in the first place. There was a proliferation of pasar malams all over Singapore and the durations were not controlled. They were starting to create a nuisance, noise and unsanitary conditions affecting two main groups of people: (1) the residents, because they were inconvenienced by all this noise; (2) shopkeepers were unhappy because these pasar malams came, operated without the overheads of having to maintain shops throughout the year in order to service their customers. And these pasar malams were coming in at particular times of the year, undercutting shopkeepers and taking away their customers. So in response to these concerns, we introduced some curbs on the duration of pasar malams, where they can be held, how often they can be held. I have explained the duration, the booking period and so forth. I am not sure which part Mr Chiam does not understand.

The Minister said that the introduction of curbs was due to the proliferation of pasar malams. And as a result of the curbs, opposition grassroots organisations are not allowed to organise fairs. Is the Minister saying that this proliferation was due to the organisation of pasar malams by the opposition grassroots organisations and not by the RCs as well? Why is he not curbing the RCs as well?

Sir, Mr Low is mistaken on all the counts that he has raised. First of all, RCs are curbed. RCs have a limit of three days per year. RCs have curbs placed on them and there are controls. And it is also not true that opposition town councils are not able to organise pasar malams. Opposition town councils have organised pasar malams. As I said, Potong Pasir Town Council has done so. Bukit Gombak Town Council has done so. And the town councils are one of the three groups in a constituency, together with the CCC and the CCMC, who can use the 16 days for organising fairs.

asked the Minister for Health if he will give an update on the measures taken to enforce the ban on smoking for the under-18-year-olds and whether the ban has achieved its purpose.

Sir, the ban on smoking by youths below 18 years old was implemented in May 1993. The control measures include: (i) prohibition of smoking and buying of tobacco products by youths below 18 years old; (ii) prohibition of sale of tobacco products to youths below 18 years old; and (iii) mandatory display of notice on the prohibition of sale of tobacco to youths below 18 years at retail outlets. Sir, inspectors from the Smoking Control Unit of the Ministry of Health carry out daily inspection and surveillance of tobacco retail outlets and popular sites frequented by youths to ensure compliance of the law. Besides the Ministry of Health inspectors, the Police, inspectors from the Ministry of the Environment, Parks and Recreation officers, school principals and teachers are also authorised to enforce the law. From May 1993 to December 1995, our inspectors have checked 17,097 tobacco retail outlets. In 1993, when the law was first introduced, 23 retailers failed to display appropriate notices. In 1995, only one retailer failed to display the appropriate notice. For the seven months in 1993, eight retailers were caught selling cigarettes to youths. For the whole of 1995, the number was seven. Since the law was introduced, 3,630 under-aged youths have been caught for smoking offences. The number of first-time offenders fell from 1,012 in 1993 to 724 in 1995. Many offenders and repeat offenders were referred to the Ministry of Health by school authorities. They were counselled to attend the smoking cessation programme specially organised by the Ministry for youths. A total of 619 youths had attended the workshop. Anti-smoking campaigns and health talks are also organised by the Ministry to educate youths on the harmful effects of smoking. The Ministry's survey on the prevalence of smoking among Singaporean youths aged 18-19 years old shows that there is a decrease from 15.2% to 12.2% between 1992 and 1995.

asked the Minister for Communications whether lorries and trucks are required to have rear bumpers and, if not, why not.

Sir, since September 1993, all motor vehicles, including lorries and trucks, with a maximum laden weight of 8 tonnes or more, and trailers are required to be fitted with rear under-run bumpers before they can be registered. Existing vehicles were given two years up to September 1995 to retrofit their under-run bumpers. Since 1st September 1994, this requirement also applied to newly registered vehicles with a maximum laden weight of more than 3.5 tonnes. The under-run bumpers fitted to the rear of heavy vehicles can help to cushion the impact of collisions by smaller vehicles and thus minimise injuries and fatalities for the occupants of the smaller vehicles.

Sir, if the grace period is over now, how come we can observe that there are still quite a number of lorries on the road without these under-run bumpers?

Sir, the grace period expired in September 1995. As and when these vehicles come in for inspection, they will be required to be fitted with these bumpers. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question No. 11 has been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 12th March, 1996.]

"to amend the Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Chapter 187 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the transfer of part of the Register of Graduates of the National University of Singapore to the Nanyang Technological University and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [28th February, 1996], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997." - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance. The Budget this year has been popularly received. In a dialogue session conducted by the Feedback Unit on 1st March, 1996, all participants, including the few who asked the Government to give more assistance to the local SMEs, supported and welcomed this year's Budget. Personally, I feel that there are two main characteristics in this year's Budget. First, it is very generous. Through tax deductions, rebates and asset enhancement, the Government has proposed to increase the disposable income and assets of the people to enable all its citizens, including those in the lower income group living in 1-room and 2-room HDB flats, to have a share in the fruits of economic growth, thereby encouraging our people to be more hardworking and to actively increase their savings. This is the philosophy advocated by the supply-side economists. Here I would like to suggest that the Minister for Finance release some facts and figures to illustrate the various benefits enjoyed by the people of different income levels and living in different types of HDB flats after taking into account the tax reductions and the various rebates so that they can make a comparison. In 1994, when the Government implemented GST, such facts and figures were released. The second feature of this year's Budget is that it is pro-growth. On the one hand, it cuts corporate tax and property tax rates to increase the after-tax profit and to moderate cost increases. On the other hand, through tax concessions and other incentive schemes, it selectively promotes the growth of certain industries and activities. The financial service, high-tech creative service, knowledge-intensive industry, and environmental friendly activities which conserve energy and water, as well as activities which raise capital fund from overseas, will benefit from these incentives. However, the effectiveness of these incentives to enterprises would depend on how well they can make use of such incentives and concessions. The local SMEs face many limitations and difficulties. These difficulties can be further discussed in the Committee of Supply. I urge the Government to give special consideration to the local SMEs in the proposed Development and Expansion Scheme to give comprehensive assistance to their development. I also hope that the Government will announce the details and procedures for applications for the incentive scheme as soon as possible. Generally, the companies and the people are more concerned with the tax changes. However, in this year's Budget Statement, the Finance Minister has also highlighted two important issues. Firstly, the Government's policy on the supply-side fundamentals. Secondly, the substance of the reform of the civil service management and control system. On the first issue, the Government's policy on the supply-side fundamentals is correct. Many scholars of planned economies are very clear that the former Soviet Union and China (before its reform and liberalisation) had wasted a lot of resources. These scholars will surely praise the Singapore Government's supply-side policies. One such policy is the pricing of the factors of production. If the factors of production such as land, labour, electricity, fuel and telecommunications are not correctly priced, it will result in the distortion of allocation of resources and even wastage of resources. I agree with this economic principle. However, when the Minister for Finance used this policy to explain the proposed increase in electricity tariffs, it is not convincing enough. Some scholars and the more educated people would ask: (1) What should be the adequate rate of return on investment in power supply? (2) Would the rate of return consider economic externalities? (3) What are the differences in accounting principles and methods of calculations between the World Bank's acounting system and the commercial accounting system that have resulted in different rates of return on the investment in power supply? However, the main worry of ordinary folks is whether the increase in electricity tariffs will affect their cost of living directly and indirectly. Are the proposed utility rebates enough to offset the increase in their cost of living due to the increase of electricity tariffs? Enterprises, particularly those in industries which use a lot of water, are concerned whether their cost will increase. A more important question is whether the other factors of production, such as land and labour, are priced correctly because of the Government's interference with their markets and levies are imposed on these factors of production. I suggest that the Minister for Trade and Industry give the House a more detailed explanation in the Committee of Supply. On the second issue, I support the proposed reform of the civil service. This would enable the civil service to be more flexible, to have more initiative, and to move towards the target of being service-oriented. However, there would be difficulties in its implementation. For Government departments which deal with various applications, issue of identity cards and the treatment of outpatients, although their output can be quantified, the output is time-based. In formulating the performance indicators, quality should not be sacrificed for more output. On the other hand, the output of services in many Government departments is extremely difficult or even impossible to quantify. The Minister has suggested that the GDP growth be used as the proxy for the output growth of these departments. In national income accounting, the normal practice is to estimate total output of the public sector by its expenditure, but the present suggestion of the Minister is to use the GDP growth as the proxy for the increase in the budgeted expenditure of these departments. Is there a contradiction between these two approaches? The two Opposition Members, Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Chiam See Tong, have described this year's Budget as generous. One of them said that it is an "Election Budget". This is wrong and misleading; the rebates, tax cuts and the asset enhancement programme are not unique in this year's Budget. They were implemented before. This is the Government's policy of sharing the fruits of economic success with the people. Returning the wealth to the people so as to encourage the people to work harder and to save more is both correct and desirable. However, some skills and art are required when giving away ang pows. On the one hand, we want to avoid raising the expectations of the people too high and take the ang pows given by the Government for granted. On the other hand, we must not give the people the feeling of being at the beck and call of the Government ( ). Giving of ang pows has to be done with more compassion. For example, at the end of last year, the advisors to grassroots organisations personally presented the Edusave Merit Bursaries to outstanding students from the lower income families and this was a very wise thing to do. This sort of personal touch is certainly more sincere and more personal than to simply credit the amount to the beneficiary's account through the computer. It also makes the people who have received this award feel more humane. So we must have the proper art and skills in distributing the wealth. We should not sacrifice compassion for efficiency when we distribute wealth, even diminishing the meaning of giving away ang pows. I do not know how the Minister for Finance feels about this. In last year's Budget Statement, the Finance Minister mentioned about the building of a cohesive society. As far back as 18th February 1981, I mentioned in this House the undesirable consequences resulting from an imbalance between the cultural development and economic development. At that time I mentioned that when we entered the 1980s, we should look back at our achievements over the past two decades. We must review in the process of rapid economic development and rising standards of living, what have we lost as a nation and a people? My view at that time was that the trends of materialism, utilitarianism and individualism had eroded our moral values. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, the anti-social and ugly behaviour of some Singaporeans are clear symptoms of such an imbalanced development. This has resulted in our political and community leaders suddenly having to ask themselves: What kind of a society is Singapore turning into? What kind of people are we Singaporeans? Allocation of more funds for the building of arts centres, sports stadiums and the financial support for the arts and sporting activities are necessary. However, how are we going to cultivate the individual culture-ness, the moral values and social behaviour of Singaporeans and to enhance the cohesiveness of the family is a very difficult but absolutely necessary task. It is one of the keys to the future survival of Singapore. During an economic recession or a national crisis, can our people cooperate with the Government to face challenges together without panic ( )? Or will everybody seek his or her personal paradise and disregard the national interest? We must always remember that men do not live on bread and butter alone. I do understand that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister for Finance. It is a challenge that the Government and the people would have to face together. However, can the Minister for Finance consider giving some incentive schemes or take measures to promote the effort in this field to balance the economic development and cultural development? Can the Minister for Finance consider the following suggestions: (1) As the Senior Minister has suggested, to impose tax on the basis of families so that members of a family could share in the various benefits and social services provided by the Government. This will help to enhance the cohesiveness of the family. (2) To allocate more funds to assist volunteer organisations so that they will not waste too much time and energy on fund-raising, instead they can focus their attention on how to organise more charitable and social activities and also to attract more young people to participate in these activities to help the poor, the old and the less privileged people in society, thereby indirectly cultivating their moral values. (3) To allocate more funds to TCS and RCS to produce and telecast more current affairs, documentary and drama programmes to enhance the cohesiveness of the family, and to inculcate moral values and enhance the culture-ness and social behaviour of the individuals. TV and radio programmes have great influence on the silent majority. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government talks of creation of wealth. To me, creation of wealth would mean either to make or generate wealth by doing business, investment or by putting money in the bank to get interest. Presently, Singapore has accumulated more than $90 billion in our reserves. It will come to $100 billion very soon. If this amount is invested, and there are returns from this money invested, then I would say it is creation of wealth. As far as we are concerned, neither this Parliament nor the people of Singapore really know where our money has been invested and how much. Nor have this House nor the people of Singapore been informed what are the returns on thse investments so far. We have no information about the returns or investments in every year's Budget. And if indeed we do have returns on these investments and if this money is returned to the people, then you can say it is creation of wealth. As it stands now, it is the Government's policy that if it collects more and in the end there is any surplus, it will be returned to the people. To me, the Singapore Government is like a sheep farmer. Every year they shear the sheep for their wool and at the end of the year, they return one strand of the wool to you and say, "There you are! We created wealth for you." And you must not forget that out of the revenue of the Government, nearly $4 billion came from non-traditional sources. I give you an example - COE. COE is created as a temporary measure to curb the increase of the car population. Similarly, ARF and the foreign workers levy. These are non-traditional sources of revenue for the Singapore Government. An hon. Member: Non-traditional?

"Traditional" means the usual source where you get the money from every year. The Government is collecting this revenue year in and year out. But this is an interim measure introduced for a certain purpose. So we call it "non-traditional" source. There is a Mandarin saying "Yang mao chu zai yang shen shang" ( ). It means that whatever you are given, you pay for it. Various measures had been introduced in the past to curb car population. You have the COE, the ARF, very steep road tax, diesel tax and ad valorem duties on petrol. We have succeeded in curbing the growth of the car population. And very soon there will be implementation of the electronic road pricing which is a very equitable measure to penalise the road users. The more you use the road, the more you pay for using the road. Therefore, in view of the present position, I would suggest that the Government should do away with ARF and reduce the road tax. In Australia, they do not have such a thing as road tax, but they call it a licence or registration fee. In other words, you pay every year. Irrespective of the cubic capacity of your car, you pay about $300 a year. And in the United States, the last time I heard it was about $98 for vehicles on the road. But here it depends on the cubic capacity of all the vehicles. I would also suggest that the Government should do away with diesel tax and also reduce the ad valorem duties on petrol. Of course, if you do away with all these, it will cost the Government at least $5 billion from this non-traditional source. Presently, taxis are paying about 70% of the COE and they pay a flat rate of $2,000 as far as ARF is concerned. Of course, when this was introduced, the Government said it was a way of curbing or controlling the number of taxis on the road. But I disagree fully simply because it is not open to anyone who can just drive or ply a taxi on the road. One must apply for a licence. The Government can control by way of restricting the number of taxis that can be on the road. Therefore, the reduction of all these would benefit the taxi drivers and the commuters. Singapore has got a duopoly in the transport system. I would say not even duopoly, it is monoploy in fact. Why do I use the word "duopoly"? Because we have two main bus operators - TIBS and SBS. But I would explain later that, in fact, it is monopoly, not duopoly. Duopoly would mean that it is like a competition in any sports. You have two athletes running. One is running a 50-metre race at one track; the other is running at another, say, a 100-metre track. This is not competition. Why I say this is simply because we have SBS and TIBS. But they are not running the same major routes. So it is not competition. And it is not healthy when you have monopoly because commuters have no say. We are completely at the mercy of the bus operators. Public transport should serve a public purpose. Of late, we have seen some bus companies just withdrawing from some of the routes because they say they are non-profitable. And who suffers? The people suffer. Why can we not follow, eg, Hong Kong? They have more bus services to compete. In fact, they have smaller bus companies to augment or supplement the bigger companies and because the smaller companies have lower overheads, they therefore can afford to run the minor routes and thus benefit members of the public. In fact, it would appear that the bus company is slowly converting more and more of their routes to air-conditioned bus services and invariably the bus fares would go up. If the intervals of non-air-conditioned buses are not reduced, it is fair enough. But it would appear that with the introduction of air-conditioned bus service, the non-air-conditioned services are automatically staggered. You have to wait for a longer time. In other words, those who are used to travelling by non-air-conditioned buses to save 10-20 cents may miss their classes or may be late for work because the waiting period is longer. Instead of having one bus every five minutes, you now have a bus about 10-15 minutes later because of the introduction of air-conditioned bus services. So it is very unfair to a lot of the working population or students who have to rush to the university, college or school. It is very unfair to them because you are imposing this on them, and giving them no choice. If you have more bus services, at least they are given a choice. So if you want, you have got money, you want to travel in comfort, travel by air-conditioned bus. If you do not want that, you travel by non-air-conditioned bus. The Government should seriously consider getting other bus services to compete. The Government should stick to its original objective when the CPF scheme was first introduced. The intention and spirit of the CPF scheme was that the money will be put aside, and when you reach the age of 55, you would be allowed to withdraw your money. Now, it appears that you cannot withdraw the total amount when you reach the age of 55. The Government has started off with the Medisave scheme where we have to put aside a certain amount for Medisave. With the introduction of the Minimum Sum Scheme, you have to wait until you reach the age of 60, then you are allowed a monthly withdrawal of $230, that is to say, if you have sufficient funds in the Minimum Sum. If you do not have this amount, you will not be able to get $230 a month. The Minimum Sum is divided into cash and property. If you are the owner of a flat, you can pledge your flat and you have to pay cash of about $36,000 into the Minimum Sum. May I suggest that if the amount is not allowed to be withdrawn at the age of 55, the Government should allow owners of HDB flats to pledge their flats without having to pay cash to top up the Minimum Sum. In fact, I accidentally met a person about two months ago, who told me that he would be reaching the age of 55 and he would be withdrawing so much money. He was very happy as his flat is worth about $110,000. So he had calculated that he could withdraw so much. When he went to HDB to find out how much he could withdraw, he got a shock of his life when he discovered that the amount was much less. He asked the HDB officer and was told that when he calculated the amount that he could withdraw under the Minimum Sum Scheme they did not base it on the market value of the property. They base it on the time of the purchase. He bought the property at $19,000, but now it is worth $110,000. What happens is that he must make up the difference between $19,000 and $40,000, in other words, he gets much less. That is what happens. The Ministry can confirm this or otherwise. The Singapore Government has been encouraging women to work so as to increase the workforce in Singapore. On the one hand, it is encouraging more and more housewives to work. On the other hand, it is increasing the foreign workers levy. In Singapore, I think we have at least 500,000 people whose income is less than $2,000 a month. With $2,000, minus CPF of $400, you get $1,600. If you have two school children attending independent school, or for that matter attending kindergarten, and the fees are between $85 and $180, I really do not know how they can make ends meet. There are a lot of housewives who have not much education and who want to work in a factory to assist their husband. But they have found it not worth their while simply because if they work in a factory, they are paid about $800-$900 with overtime. With the foreign maid levy taking away $330 and provision of food for the maid, they can hardly get back $300-$400.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek a clarification? Is the Member saying that those who are earning about $2,000 can afford a maid?

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, my understanding is that if your income is $2,000, you are qualified for a maid. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---

Order. Mr Ling, would you give way to Dr Tan?

Yes, of course.

If I get it correct, if you earn $2,000 you can still afford to have a maid. Maybe the Minister can clarify.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry looks at all applications for foreign domestic workers on the basis of whether the household income is able to sustain the payment of the foreign workers levy and also the domestic worker's wages plus all the other expenses. We do not have a hard and fast rule. It may well be $2,000. It may well be $3,000. It depends on the circumstances of the application. Since I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, Sir, would you allow me to seek clarification from Mr Ling? I heard him saying that people have been asked to pay cash to top up their Minimum Sum. I would like Mr Ling to produce evidence that we have asked people to pay cash to top up their Minimum Sum because that is not how the Minimum Sum is being operated and that is not my understanding of how the revised Minimum Sum Scheme is being implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say I have evidence of someone who was asked to pay cash to top up the Minimum Sum. What I have cited was someone who wanted to withdraw his money. That was my example. But what I am saying is that for the CPF Top-Up Scheme, the amount for the Minimum Sum is through CPF. You are paying back through CPF. In that sense, it is cash. If your CPF is deducted, you will get less. Is it not as good as you are paying cash? Of course, it is over a period of time. If my income is $1,500 and I have to top up the Minimum Sum, I will take back $1,200. Is it not cash every month? I will get $300 less. In that sense, it is cash. One more point which I would like to make here is that the foreign maid levy and the foreign workers levy are imposed, as explained by the Labour Ministry, to curb or control the influx of these workers. I mentioned earlier about controlling the number of taxis. Similarly, workers and maids are not allowed to come here at any time they want. They must apply for a permit from the Labour Ministry. In the same way, the Labour Ministry can impose a quota on the number of maids or foreign workers coming to Singapore. Therefore, I am suggesting that they should reduce the foreign maid levy and foreign workers levy. Some of them are paying about $350 to $400 a month. And it is because of this payment of levy that you find property prices have gone up because overheads and costs have gone up. If you reduce the levy, you will be able to stabilise the property market. In fact, quite a substantial part is being paid. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government to do more for the poor and the disadvantaged. There ought to be more subsidies in medical treatment, ward charges and operation fees for the poor. As it is now, the amount of subsidies is just not sufficient. I suspect that the so-called subsidy by the Government is not below cost subsidy but below market price subsidy. Let me cite an example. If you go to a polyclinic, you pay $7 per visit excluding medicine. Formerly, you may have paid $12 including medicine. It varies. So you can say, on average, you probably pay $13-$14 per visit to the polyclinic. But if you visit a private practitioner, you pay about $16. But you must not forget that when you go to a private clinic and they charge you $16, the doctor must have made at least 50% from there. He must have made $8 from there. So the actual cost is only $8. [Interruption.] Please tell us whether doctors make less than this. An hon. Member: How about lawyers?

Do not mention about lawyers. It is not because I am a lawyer. But let me tell you one thing. In Singapore, there are so many lawyers who can hardly earn a living and there are lawyers who are earning about $200,000 or $300,000 in certain months. So do not compare it that way. It is as simple as that. In any profession, it is not necessary the best that will make the most money. It depends on your contacts. It depends on your clientele. You may be a lousy lawyer but if your contacts are good, you can engage a good lawyer to work for you, which is what happens in Singapore. So do not compare it that way. I am talking of medical health care. If the Government is serious about subsidy, the subsidy should be below cost and not below market price. I cite a simple example. In Singapore, C class ward charges are $25 per day, excluding food, toilet paper, medicine, etc. For a C class ward, the Government claims there is a subsidy of 80%. So without subsidy, it comes to $125 per day. If you compare with a private ward outside - we have a number of hon. Members here who have clinics outside - you will find that, for $180, you stay in a two-bedded ward with an air-conditioner, telephone and TV. So is this subsidy? In a private hospital, in a four-bedded ward, you pay $157, with air-conditioner, colour TV, etc. Bearing in mind all the infrastructure and equipment, everything in the hospital is paid for from the taxpayer's money. Therefore, when you talk of subsidy, the Government should make sure it is below cost subsidy. It is very easy to work it out this way. If the private hospital charges $200, how much do they make from this amount? If they make $100, that means their cost is $100. So if members of the public are asked to pay $80, that means the subsidy is $20. It is very simple. We do not have to go beyond that. The Government should do that. Then I will agree that it is really subsidising Singaporeans. As regards kidney dialysis in Singapore, I was told that a patient has to pay a minimum of $500-$600 per month for treatment. There are some members of a family who just do not have this amount. Their income is about $1,200. If they take away $600, they can hardly survive. I think the Government should be more flexible on these poor and disadvantaged people. The unfortunate part is this. No one knows what is the cause of kidney trouble. We cannot take preventive measures. It comes out of the blue. And believe you me, I had a friend who died about six months ago. When he first contacted the disease, he sold his private house and he spent $250,000. Later on, he went to the National Kidney Foundation for treatment. But because of the regularity of the treatment, it affected his work. So he staggered the treatment. Instead of going twice or three times a week, he went once a week for treatment. Then he was admitted into hospital in a very serious condition and he passed away not long ago. He was a good friend of mine. I think we should have a heart for these unfortunate brethren of ours. Unless, of course, if a man smokes and drinks and he suffers from kidney trouble, there should be no subsidy at all. He deserved it. He asked for it. But if a patient suffers from kidney disease and it comes from nowhere and cannot be prevented, I think we should have a heart for our fellow brothers or sisters. I also urge the Minister for Finance to seriously consider exempting hospital charges from GST. In other words, whatever hospital bill a person pays, he does not have to pay 3% GST. Similarly, I will also ask the Minister for Finance to consider granting medical benefits to the children of women civil servants. At present, only children of male civil servants are covered but not the children of women civil servants. I would urge the Minister to consider granting medical benefits to the children of women civil servants. Because this involves about $8 million a year only. The fees for independent schools have increased. In some of the independent schools, the students have to pay about $200 per month and some pay $175 per month. It varies from school to school. To me, I feel that this amount is beyond the ability of many Singaporeans. I therefore urge the Government to really consider granting more scholarships or bursaries to the poor. At the secondary level, it should be based on the ability of the students to pay. In other words, those from well-off families, and in recognition of their performance in school, they should be given book prizes. In terms of money, the Government should give those who really need the money for them to advance their education. I now come to community development. If I am correct, in the whole of Singapore, we have only one home for the aged and the destitute run by the Government. The rest are all run by voluntary organisations, churches and clan associations. Of course, I know that they are subsidised by the Government. But what I am saying is that the Government is in a position financially to build at least one or more homes for the aged.

Order. Mr Ling, your time is up. Mr Leong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has been extremely generous this year. Adding up all the numbers, I have counted that he is giving away a total of $1.86 billion in 1996 in the form of tax cuts, incentives and rebates announced, and another $1.07 billion in 1997. Therefore, I think that Mr Ling How Doong is dead wrong in giving the example that the Singapore Government is like a sheep farmer, meaning that it has taken all the wool and giving only one strand of wool back to the people. If he sees one strand of wool to be worth $1.86 billion, this must be a very long and thick strand of wool! It can go round and round the world and create a lot of woollen clothing for Singaporeans as well. And even the $1.07 billion announced this year is for 1997. In 1997, it could even be a bigger figure. Indeed, like Dr Ow Chin Hock, I can call this a very generous Budget. During this year's Lunar New Year festive period, the Finance Minister has become the " " or God of Fortune. In Chinese, cai zheng bu zhang cheng wei cai shen ye [ ] He is bringing huge hong baos and good tidings to all Singaporeans. Even though this is a generous Budget, I agree with Dr Ow Chin Hock that it is quite mean of the Opposition MPs, such as Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Ling How Doong, to debase the Finance Minister's generosity by calling this an "election budget". This creates an unfair impression that the Government is giving out incentives just to win votes. Let me give a few reasons why. First, it is as a result of the 37 years of good PAP Government that our country is doing so well, attained international recognition and achieved excellent economic results consistently year after year. The Government has accumulated surpluses no doubt, but it has also built excellent physical infrastructure, industries and, at the same time, lowered taxes, given rebates and made CPF Top-Up contributions. Secondly, the various rebates and tax reductions have also been given in the previous years. Most of the goodies are not only given for the first time this year. The Prime Minister announced today that the Government has in fact returned $1.65 billion of surpluses last year. So we must be the envy of many governments. Many Western countries have not been able to even balance their budgets, not to say any attempt to put up election budgets during election years. Thirdly, if the Government had wanted to win votes, it could easily have introduced many give-aways and set up many social welfare schemes to dole out millions, maybe even billions, just to win votes. We have seen the perils of such social welfare programmes especially in the Western countries. I am sure Singaporeans do not want our Government to adopt such welfare schemes that will lead the country down the slippery perilous path of doom. If we were to examine the Budget very closely, we can see that this year's Budget is not really a rampant free for all. It is a very carefully prepared Budget. As I have said, the Minister is generous no doubt. But the incentives are not given away freely and mindlessly. There are several incentives, rebates and measures being introduced that are set to achieve certain specific objectives. These are tax incentives to encourage industries to promote energy and water conservation, rebates on utilities, rental and S&C charges to assist the low-income group, and tax relief to reward National Servicemen and their families in recognition of their national service contribution. However, in comparison, there are only a limited number of incentives given to the business sector. The Budget can be deemed to be not overly stimulative to the business sector. I would remark that this approach is quite appropriate this year, since the economy is doing relatively well. Any unnecessary over-stimulation of the economy may well lead to further cost increases, wage increases and inflationary pressures. The Government is giving away many incentives and rebates which total $1.86 billion in 1996. It is remarkable that after spending this amount in "hong baos", the Minister for Finance will still have a $7.1 billion surplus in the new financial year 1996/97. Moreover, this surplus is attained after paying for both operating and capital expenditures. If such healthy surpluses are continuously achieved in future years, I would like to suggest that the Finance Minister should try to continue to give rebates on S&C charges, rentals and utility bills. These rebates are particularly meaningful to the low-income group. In addition, I would also like to urge the Minister to consider further reduction of direct taxes such as corporate tax and income tax. These rebates and tax reductions serve as a counter balance to the increasing contributions being made to other indirect taxes, such as GST, COEs and maids' levy. However, I think it is also worthwhile to remind Singaporeans that these numerous rebates and tax reliefs can only be given by the Finance Minister if our economy continues to do well. If any unexpected events were to occur or the economy suffers a setback, then Singaporeans should know very well that there will be a cutback on the rebates and reliefs. In the worse case, even our HDB Upgrading Programme and Edusave Programme will have to be scaled down if the Government cannot generate enough surpluses during the current financial year. At present, we have a happy problem of how to spend the surpluses. Many people are clamouring to suggest how to spend this extra money earned by the Singapore Government, the PAP Government. Many ideas have been suggested and more will be proposed by both Government MPs as well as our Opposition MPs who are eyeing these surpluses and telling us how to spend them. I would like to suggest that the Government should focus on channelling the surpluses into two main areas: (1) on physical infrastructure; and (2) on education and training. On physical infrastructure, I wish to suggest that the Government can spend more and advance the development plans for the MRT system, light rail system, roads, industrial parks, land reclamation and power stations. In fact, more Government spending on physical infrastructure is beneficial directly to the Government, as the State owns 52% of the total land in Singapore, while statutory boards own another 21%. Any appreciation in land value will see the State as the largest benefactor, as it is the owner of 73% of all lands in Singapore. On education and training, I feel that the Government can afford to be more generous in upgrading our education system and the school infrastructure. For example, schools get grants for the basic standard items. However, for extras such as video facilities, computers and others, the schools are expected to raise their own funds via fund raising. As a result, we often hear of calls for donations or fund raising projects by schools. While there are some positive effects in getting the schools to mobilise teachers, pupils, parents, alumnis and well-wishers to raise funds, I think it can also be very taxing, disruptive and time-consuming for all concerned. Principals, teachers and pupils should be allowed to devote more of their time to teaching and learning, rather than to fund raising. Hence, I would call on the Government to be more generous and allocate more funds to schools to pay for the useful supplemental expenses such as computers, video libraries and enhanced sports facilities. Government can also consider giving more overseas scholarships, Government-sponsored retraining programme for workers, expansion of technical institutes, polytechnics and universities. Along this vein, I would like to say that more funds can also be allocated for the highly commendable Edusave Merit Bursary Awards Scheme that was introduced last year. This is a brilliant scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise a few specific issues and suggestions. It is a kind gesture of the Government to increase the tax relief for National Servicemen to $2,000 and give tax relief of $500 each to their parents and wives. However, I understand that about 75% of the population do not pay income tax. This means that three out of every four parents or wives do not enjoy this tax relief. This is particularly true for the low-income group. I would like to suggest that the Government consider offering an equivalent amount in the tax payable (say, they are taxed 10% average nationally) in the form of a direct payment into the CPF accounts for those who do not pay income tax. Hence, for this incentive, the National Servicemen, their parents and wives can have a choice to opt for either the full tax relief or an equivalent amount (say 10%) as direct payment into their CPF accounts. This way, the relief offered can become a real and meaningful one, so that it can be enjoyed by the lower income groups who do not pay tax. I would like to suggest that the Government can also do more to upgrade the common areas in the private residential estates, such as constructing more footpaths, jogging paths and even covered linkways and more play equipment and landscaping in the private estates. These expenses form only a relatively small amount compared to the $1 billion to $1.5 billion being spent on HDB estates on the Main Upgrading Programme, Interim Upgrading Programme and other CIPC-funded projects. Since comparatively a smaller amount of money is spent on these private estates, I think the Government should not be stingy to help private estates to upgrade a little. Although the Government has given explanation and clarification on the proposed privatisation of Singapore Power, I am afraid there is a need to explain further. I do not know whether this is a case of the Government not explaining clearly enough or the people not listening carefully. Fundamentally, I believe we can understand the Finance Minister's clarification in his Budget Speech that we need to raise electricity tariffs so as to price our factors of production, such as electricity, at the true economic value. This is to avoid distortion in consumption and wastage. This part I believe the people can understand and accept. What needs more explanation is the rationale for privatisation. There is also a need to justify the target rate of return of 10-11%. The people's perception is that the electricity tariff increases are linked to the plan for privatisation and listing of Singapore Power. The question is then asked: Why not just corporatise and abort the idea of listing, and then aim for a lower rate of return? As a general policy review, I would like to suggest that the Government can also do a review of the overall policy and strategy of privatisation of Government agencies. The public perception created so far is that corporatisation and privatisation appears to lead to increases in rates and charges. Other instances that come to mind are the restructuring of Government hospitals that leads to higher hospitalisation bills, rationalisation of MRT and bus routes that leads to more inconvenience and higher charges for those affected. Of course, there were good explanations for these policies. It appears that there is a need to explain further and remind the people of the wider objectives of these privatisation programmes. And more needs to be done to conduct talks and seminars, and provide publicity materials to enable the overall purposes and intentions to be put across clearly to the people. One excellent example of a well planned exercise conducted to explain a new Government initiative is the introduction of the GST. We may take a leaf or two from this example. Another need is to do a review of the progress made in the past privatisation exercises such as hospital restructuring, Singapore Telecom, MRT/bus rationalisation, to demonstrate or substantiate whether the original objectives have been achieved. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to round up my comments by referring two other subjects to the Minister. One is on the subject of promotion of water and electricity conservation. I am pleased that the Government has introduced further incentives to promote water and energy conservation in industry. Water and electricity are two very important scarce resources. I would like to suggest that the Minister should give an update to the House on the status and success in water and electricity conservation campaigns and the future plans for these campaigns. The second topic is on the woes of the retail industry. The retail industry currently is facing acute problems of poor business arising from excessive competition and rising costs. These problems are encountered by both large and small retailers. I would like to ask whether the Government can do something to assist them. The Minister for Trade and Industry has said previously that the best thing to do is for the retailers to refuse higher rentals or simply not start the retail business if costs are too high. But I think more can be done. The Government should look into whether less retail space should be added to the current over-supply by releasing fewer tenders of land for shopping centres and retail spaces. Another idea is to provide retailers with more information of the current stage of the retail industry so that new entrants can be better informed as to whether they can well afford to start viable new retail shops. Sir, I wish to conclude by congratulating the Finance Minister for his generous Budget this year. Let us hope the economy can continue to do well in future so that he can be equally generous in future Budgets, if we can afford it. 2.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this era of globalisation where capital is mobile, labour, both skilled and unskilled, moves freely across borders, and information is transmitted almost instantaneously via the Internet, there is one factor which is not mobile. The quality of this factor varies from country to country and has become an increasingly crucial ingredient in determining a country's competitiveness. This factor is governance, in particular, economic governance. We in Singapore are fortunate that our economic governance has, by and large, been right. The formulation of economic policies has been according to sound economic principles and have been efficiently implemented at the appropriate time. I would like to categorise Singapore's principle of economic governance into two categories. The first category pertains to policies which had been put in place since the beginning of our process of economic development in the 1960s and has remained essentially unchanged for the last 3 1/2 decades and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. Among these principles are, first, openness to international goods and capital and selective openness to labour - selective because there are political and social considerations to be taken into account. Second, a taxation and expenditure system that has minimum dampening effects on the incentive to work, save and invest. Third, the practice of meritocracy in the labour market and in the educational system. Fourth, emphasis on capital formation, both in terms of physical infrastructure such as roads and airports as well as human resource development. This set of policies is broadly similar to those practised in other rapidly growing East Asian economies and are more or less the East Asians' recipe for economic success. A fifth principle is that of fiscal prudence. I would like to comment on the operation of this principle. One of the first figures which catch the eye when examining the Budget book is the size of the surplus - an estimated $7.1 billion for fiscal year 1996 or 5.4% of GDP, the estimated excess of receipts over outlays is $12.8 billion or 9.8% of GDP. These are not small figures. I was therefore curious as to the extent to which these surpluses are planned and the extent to which they are unanticipated and occurred because of shortfalls in expenditure and unexpectantly high revenues. I therefore checked the figures for the estimated, revised and actual surplus figures for 1990 to 1995. This is what I found. Let me cite the figures for the surplus which is defined as "Operating Revenue Less Expenditure". Surpluses Year Estimated Revised Actual $ Billion $ Billion $ Billion 1990 1.5 3.2 2.5 1991 1.4 1.8 3.9 1992 1.0 3.7 5.6 1993 1.7 4.1 7.8 1994 2.2 7.1 9.7 1995 5.8 6.3 (Not available) In short, except for 1990, the story is very consistent. The actual surplus is invariably much higher than the revised figures, which in turn is also higher than the estimated figures. For example, for 1994, the estimated surplus was $2.2 billion, while the actual surplus was $9.7 billion. The story is similar for both the budget surplus which nets off the contributions to Edusave and the various CPF Top-Up and Share-Ownership Schemes as well as for the excess of receipts over outlays which includes net investment income and net capital receipts and excludes net lending. For example, for 1994, the estimated budget surplus was $1.6 billion, the revised figure was $6.0 billion while the actual amount was $8.6 billion. For the excess of receipts over outlays, the estimated figure was $6.3 billion in 1994, the revised figure was $11.9 billion, and the actual amount was $15.3 billion. It is no mean accomplishment for the Government to turn on a surplus budget every year when other countries had difficulties keeping their budget deficit from increasing in size. It is far better to have surpluses than deficits. I can also understand the difficulties in the budget process. No one can plan perfectly. When economic growth is stronger than expected, revenues go up. However, the discrepancies in the figures are really quite large. Perhaps this is one area where some tightening up can be made. While I understand the preference to err on the side of conservatism, there is a difference between being cautious and being too cautious. Moreover, there are macro-economic effects of unanticipatedly high withdrawals from the economy. The second category of principles of governance comprises those which have undergone significant modifications over time. I can cite four. The first is that of the payment of competitive market index salaries to Ministers and key civil servants. Although ministerial and civil service pay has been raised on an ad hoc basis from time to time, 1994 was the first time that such an indexing formula has been introduced. The second is that of the corporatisation of a number of key statutory boards in recent years to become Singapore Telecom, Television Corporation of Singapore and Singapore Power and Gas. A standard format is adopted where two organisations are established, the regulatory agency and the corporatised revenue-generating body, which may or may not be subsequently floated on the Stock Exchange. While revenue-generating service providing statutory boards have been a feature of Singapore's economic institution building, this is the first time that such a wave of corporatisation has occurred. Because of the significance of these two modifications, it is important that there be an assessment of their effectiveness. I would like to suggest that a review be given by the Government regarding the implementation of, first, the market indexing of salaries of Ministers and civil servants and, second, corporatisation. Such a review could incorporate the following elements: for the market indexing of salaries, has it led to an increase in the number and quality of applicants to the Administrative Service, fewer resignations, happier and more satisfied Administrative Service officers? As for the corporatisation review, the key questions are: (1) Does the newly organised body deliver services better and more efficiently? (2) If it does, then who benefits? Shareholders in terms of higher rates of return? The public who gets more value for money, or both? I would like to further suggest that these reviews be made public not only for the sake of public accountability but also to generate full awareness of the consequences of these two important policy modifications. The third principle of governance in this category pertains to the correct pricing of factors of production, as mentioned by the Minister for Finance. The recognition that Singapore Power's electricity tariffs are too low means that there was an under-pricing of at least one factor in the past and that this would be rectified in future. I understand that a similar process of accounting for full cost has been in place in the Government for a few years now. As an economist, I agree that in order for the market mechanism to allocate factors efficiently, factored prices should reflect their true scarcity. In order to have optimal effect, correct factor pricing should be implemented across the board throughout the economy. This will then result in the correct pricing of output and if there is a subsidy, the true extent of subsidy in each activity. But I wonder whether this has indeed been implemented across the board. I refer in particular to the pricing of land. For land-intensive projects under the public sector, has the full price of land been factored in, for example, for HDB housing and for roads? I suspect that if this were indeed done, the extent of subsidy would be higher than what the public realises. A fourth and final principle that I would like to touch on pertains to the fundamental reforms to the civil service that the Minister for Finance described in his Budget speech. Credit goes to the Government for recognising the need for change to keep up with our stage of economic development and for implementating "PS 21". I agree with the Minister that, "On the domestic front, the emergence of a generation of better educated Singaporeans and an ageing population means higher expectations of and demands on all aspects of public services." A more educated population is one which is more aware of public policy and would like to know why certain policies are implemented the way they are and why others are not. The days are past when the population would merely accept the Government's word that it knows best what to do. A more educated population will ask questions, and I think that it is the Government's responsibility to answer. It does not mean that there need be any change in Government policy per se. Rather it does mean that public communication becomes more important for the Government. Public communication of Government policy is by and large the domain of politicians. This is rightly so. However, this is not enough. There are many occasions where briefings and speeches are done not by Ministers, Ministers of State or Parliamentary Secretaries, but by senior Government officials. I would therefore like to suggest that public communication be part and parcel of the skills package of senior civil servants. In other words, in order to rise through the ranks, a civil servant should not only be able to manage well but also to be able to communicate well, orally as well as in writing. Public communication is a skill that can be developed. I believe that articulate Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries would greatly enhance the public communication ability of the Government. In conclusion, I have attempted to distinguish between two categories of principles of economic governance - those that have remained essentially unchanged over the years and those which have undergone significant modification. I have also attempted to offer some suggestions as to improvement of a few of these principles. Just as a company succeeds by adapting its products to changing demand, a nation succeeds by adapting and refining its policies in response to the changing international and domestic environment. Singapore has succeeded these last 30-odd years by doing so, and I hope that Singapore will continue to have the creativity and boldness to do so in the future. 2.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite what the unofficial Opposition leader had said, I think he could not find any solid argument to fault this Budget. And the simple fact remains that we are able to have a surplus budget year after year. I think we should continue to do so if we can. Make hay while the sun shines and also save as much as we can for rainy days. Sir, for lack of a better term, the Opposition has labelled this year's Budget as an "Election Budget". It is truly regrettable that a pro-business, pro-family and pro-people Budget should warrant such negative remarks. One need not look far to discover that this comment does not have the concurrence of the general population. In fact, the response from average Singaporeans has been very more gracious and constructive than the Opposition's. They appreciate the hong bao given by the Minister and the sharing of fruits of another year of economic success. Indeed, there are many good points about this Budget. Deserving particular mention is the one-off tax rebate of 10% and a top rate cut from 30% to 28% which will lighten the tax burden of middle-income families. In fact, this group has been hardest hit by non-tax measures such as the COEs, foreign maid levy and rising property prices. I am glad that the Government has taken care of this group in this Budget while continuing to keep its focus on lower-income families. On the whole, all groups have gained from the Budget. Sir, the family has been given particular focus this year. But I believe we can do more. I am particularly drawn to the idea of a family as a tax unit. It would be ideal if our tax policies and future Budget goodies continue to maintain the family focus and explore ways and means to expand it. Recently, the Senior Minister has also briefly touched on this issue at the Tanjong Pagar GRC's Lunar New Year cum Hari Raya gathering. Some participants at the feedback session with the Feedback Unit had also given their support for this idea. I think this is an idea worth pursuing since families are the main building blocks in our society. Although the current income tax structure has already incorporated some reliefs for supporting the various members of the family, such as the parent relief, spouse relief, child relief, we should explore further on how the family can be reinforced as a cohesive and self-reliant unit. I think this is a more positive approach. Of late, we have seen the passage of the Maintenance of Parents Bill which is, from my point of view, too legalistic and litigious an approach to the issue of maintenance of parents. The House had also debated the Family Violence Bill. These two Bills, though litigious, have the good intention of ensuring that the members of family are well taken care of. The Government has also taken great pains to promote family values and national core values through extensive public education and campaigning programmes. So we have an additional approach and option, and that is, tax incentive to encourage family members to help and take care of each other. The demands and needs of a greying population will eventually put a tremendous burden on the family. They must be supported to meet the cost of living and health care needs of the elderly in the household. The medical bills especially will pose a big burden to the working persons. Allowing Medisave deductions from the children's accounts to pay for the medical bills of their parents or grandparents are inadequate in view of the rising health care costs. The account will be easily exhausted in cases of, say, major operations, chronic sickness or complexities. Thus, the Government should consider giving more tax reliefs or incentives or rebates for children who continue to pay for the maintenance and medical bills of their retired and aged parents. I am sure that with continuing education, moral persuasion and tax breaks, we can continue to preserve the cohesiveness of the family. Let me now move on to another area of concern, and that is, giving greater autonomy for higher efficiency in the civil service. I welcome the Minister's announcement of giving greater autonomy for higher efficiency in the civil service. It has introduced the concept of BFR, or Budgeting for Results, whereby resource requirements by the Government departments will be linked to output levels. In addition, every Government unit has to specify its output and set performance targets annually. This will encourage more accountability, responsiveness and effectiveness. However, there is a nagging fear among the general populace that once the Government departments become autonomous like the independent schools, restructured hospitals, charges will go up. In fact, when Dr Richard Hu launched the first 14 autonomous agencies, it was reported that the Registry of Marriages will up its fees - $15 for faster retrieval service, up $3 from the current fee. Therefore, faster service has come with an increased cost. Another example is the Tampines Polyclinic which has also announced that following autonomy, the waiting time will be shortened. That is good. But what I fail to understand is why must these agencies become autonomous before they can increase efficiency. I am also concerned that for the same need, people have to pay different fees to buy different levels of service, regardless of individual circumstances. And if these departments are measured on how well they look after the bottomline, then the increased service and customer orientation will come at a painful cost for the people. In fact, the corporatisation of Singapore Power is now viewed less favourably due to the announcement that electricity tariffs will soon be increased by 12% to 14%. The Government should tread very cautiously where the corporatisation of state enterprises or the granting of autonomous status to Government agencies is concerned. These agencies serve the people and the economy alike. If these are increased at will without a system of checks and balances, there will be adverse repercussions at all levels. Unscrupulous businessmen will use this as an excuse to trigger off another round of price increases, thereby increasing the burden of the people. Therefore, the Government must still remain in control over the fee charges even though the particular department has been granted autonomous status. Sir, the final point which I would like to bring up concerns the issue of training. Despite our heavy emphasis on training and upgrading of skills, I am disappointed to note that no fiscal incentives have been announced to encourage the training process. Although the Skills Development Fund (SDF) has been tasked to disburse funds for relevant training, the training process is not happening. First of all, the application for SDF is tedious. Second, for some reasons, the awareness is not there. The small and medium enterprises are not tapping into the many schemes subsidised by the SDF. As a result, SDF ends up subsidising the training programmes of big companies who would have their own internal training with or without SDF grant. Third, some firms, which are most in need of training and skills upgrading, continue to face the difficulty of sending people for training. Fourth, those who are prepared to go for training are hampered by the lack of know-how and the requirement that they be proficient in English and/or Chinese. This is a problem for those who are older and lowly educated but are prepared to upgrade themselves. Because they do not understand English or Chinese, they are stuck at their level, condemned to working in odd jobs and living from day to day. Eventually, this group will become very frustrated because they would be left behind as our economy becomes more sophisticated. In fact, if we are talking about equipping an individual with a skill in carpentary, construction, renovation, electrical system, and so on, there is really no need to conduct the course in English or Chinese. So long as there are people who are willing to sign up, the course should be conducted maybe in a dialect or language which is comprehensible to them. In my view, the training for these people is more urgently needed. Perhaps, the Minister can consider tangible incentives to motivate these workers to complete the training course to upgrade themselves. Tax concessions should also be considered for small and medium enterprises which invest on training their employees. In conclusion, Sir, the budget surplus should continue to be used to reinforce the fundamentals of our society. It should be used generously but prudently to encourage certain ideals, values and principles. More importantly, it should be used to reward those who have contributed and give a helping hand to those who have lagged behind. With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Finance Minister for presenting to the nation such a glorious budget in which every Singaporean is so generously rewarded for their contribution to the nation's economic growth. Without doubt, the Minister must be again the envy of all his contemporaries in other governments around the globe. Sir, the budget has been extremely well-received by both the public and business sectors, as well as by private individuals. For the majority of Singaporeans, the announcement by our Finance Minister to give away about $2,450 million in the form of tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement schemes is certainly welcomed. In particular, income tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement for the individuals and households amounted to about $1,722 million which is a whopping 70% of the total amount given. In addition, Government agencies will also be streamlined to be more accountable and responsive under Budgeting for Results. Therefore, the people are the biggest beneficiaries in this budget. However, Sir, this has also sparked off, quite unjustifiable, the negative perception of the give-aways as an "election budget". Frankly, I am surprised by such scepticism. The Government has a track record of sharing its budget surpluses through creative measures, such as rebates in HDB service and conservancy charges and rent, Edusave, Medisave grant, Pre-Medisave Top-Up, CPF Top-Up grant and asset enhancement schemes, such as SOTUS. And this is made possible only because the economy has consistently done well and the redistribution of surplus will, in no way, erode the competitiveness of Singapore's economy nor compromise the discipline of its people. These are no free handouts. Instead, they will encourage and motivate Singaporeans to strive harder, to ensure that the economy will continue to be robust in future years. And so long as we get the fundamentals right, we will continue to progress and enjoy prosperity for many years to come. Singapore is on the right track and we will progress by leaps and bounds so long as we stay on course under the PAP Government. Sir, the Opposition politicians may tell the people that it is after all an "election budget". Therefore, these goodies are only to sweeten the ground, in other words, to buy hearts or to buy votes - to put it crudely. This assertion cannot be further from the truth. The fact is many of the pro-people schemes to enhance Singaporeans' assets or to reward them for their hard work are not really new. They have already been either planned or implemented. It is most naive for them to suggest that our voters can be bought with budget goodies when there are so many factors which they will invariably take into account in electing a good government. Singaporeans through their hard work deserve the tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement schemes. So intelligent Singaporeans know that the budget is not an election budget although this year may well be an election year. They are fully aware that the Singapore Government never plays to the gallery in order to gain votes, it does not have to do so. And it will never stoop so low as to resort to gimmicks or money politics to please or hoodwink the people for political gains. Singaporeans are too smart to be hoodwinked anyway. The PAP Government is honest and its policies transparent for all to see. Its proud track records speak volumes of its achievements over the last 30 years. Sir, a few years ago, an expatriate by the name of Cedric Serpes, who with his wife has lived in Singapore for eight months, wrote in the Straits Times, and I quote: `We believe sincerely the average Singaporean is blessed with everything good to the point of being spoilt.' Among many other accolades, he says that the Singapore Government is a government that really cares for its people. Sir, now let me move to a few areas of concern. Firstly, the impending higher electricity tariffs. Despite a budget that is generally welcomed by all segments of society, the euphoria is cut short by news of impending high electricity tariffs. The Minister for Trade and Industry has disclosed that the raise would be about 12% to 14% over the next three to four years. This will mean an increase of about $1 to $2.50 more a month on electricity bills for the people. The Ministry has also maintained that the proposed increase is a result of a stringent audit of PUB's profitability and the eventual realisation that it has been posting lower returns by commercial standards. It is unfortunate that the proposed increase is made in the context of the privatisation of Singapore Power. The timing in announcing the proposed increase of Singapore Power tariffs may not have been the most appropriate. And this lends itself to be exploited by those who always like to find faults with the government. It has also led to the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the tariffs are increased to make up for the profitability of Singapore Power and its viability as a privatised institution. Of contention is the emphasis on a reasonable rate of return, ie, 10%. Why 10% return and not 5% or any other quantum? While the people can accept paying full cost for the production of electricity plus marginal profit, they find it difficult to understand the rationale for paying rates which will ensure a market average return for a state enterprise. Viewed in this light, one can understand the apprehension of the man-in-the-street in relation to the rebates on utility bills ranging from $100 to $150. Although the Finance Minister has assured that the rebates will far exceed the likely increase in annual utility bills, there is still some uneasiness. People may cry foul, complaining that the Government is taking dollars from their right pockets and putting cents into their left ones. Certainly, this issue would warrant further clarifications by the Minister. Nevertheless, the rebate on utility bills is certainly welcomed by the majority of the households as the family now has more cash for other purposes. Secondly, Sir, the point I want to raise is family as a tax unit. Measures such as rebates on HDB service and conservancy charges and rent and utility bills are particularly welcomed because they benefit the family or household and also reach out to the majority of Singaporeans staying in HDB flats. These household-based measures to redistribute the surpluses should continue to be incorporated in future budgets. If the economy continues to do well, may I request the Minister to also consider giving rebates in household bills such as telecommunications, TV and radio licences, property tax, foreign workers levy, taxi diesel tax and so on. These rebates will relieve the family's burden immediately and free more cash for basic consumption. The Budget, through its fiscal policies, should also promote family cohesiveness by providing incentives to encourage families to stay together and for the children to support their elderly parents. Although legislation is already in place to ensure that children do look after their parents, we should explore additional avenues whereby people who have done so are rewarded. Besides revising the existing parents' relief to take into account the cost of living, the Minister should perhaps consider allowing children to claim tax concessions for paying the hospital bills of their parents. Although Medisave currently does allow children to pay for their parents' medical needs through CPF, they are inadequate in the long term in view of the rising healthcare costs and an ageing population. They should then be given the option to pay their parents' medical bills either through the Medisave account or by cash up-front, after which they can claim tax concessions. Through this measure, the Government is extending its support to individuals who are taking care of their elderly parents in the family. In this respect, the Government's pro-family policy will undoubtedly promote family cohesiveness and the retention of the right Asian family values, so vital to us in a multi-racial nation. Finally, Sir, it remains for me to also commend the Minister for doubling the tax reliefs given to NSmen and for extending the scheme to their parents and wives. The NSmen I know and have spoken to have expressed appreciation for the Government's care, concern and generosity shown towards them. The parents and wives of the NSmen, on the other hand, feel a sense of deep gratitude to the Government for finally recognising their role in the total defence of Singapore. However, they also call on the Government to revise upwards their monthly NS allowance as a further recognition of their contributions to the nation. Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the Finance Minister.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chairman of the Estimates Committee for this House, I am compelled to respond to some of the remarks made by earlier speakers. First, it pertains to a remark made by Mr Ling How Doong - he is not in the House - who mentioned that he was ignorant and not aware of what sort of returns we get from our reserves. If one looks at the Budget document under the Overview section at pages 5, 15, 22 and so on, there are enough descriptions and information on the sort of investment incomes that we get from the reserves. I am surprised that this statement should come from Mr Ling How Doong because he is a Member of my Estimates Committee. As Members of the Estimates Committee, we are expected to scrutinise Government expenditure and revenue estimates in detail, and I expect him to understand the format of this document. The other remark pertains to budget surpluses. I think Members of the House will realise that last year, the Estimates Committee met to review what caused the budget surpluses in the last five years. The Committee made its observations and recommendations to the Ministry of Finance with a view to trying to reduce the budget surpluses. I think this Report of the Estimates Committee was circulated to Members of the House in November last year. It gives a detailed review of the causes of budget surpluses in terms of expenditures and revenues in the last five financial years. The recommendations and observations go to show that the higher budget surpluses in the last five years were attributed mainly to three factors. Firstly, higher than expected GDP growth. The actual GDP growth was 9-10% compared to an assumed 6-7% growth in the budget every year. Another factor is the higher than expected COE revenues. The last factor is higher development charges arising from rezoning of land for development. These reasons were described in some detail in the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance in this year's Budget. So I do not wish to touch on them further. But Members of the House may wish to refer to this Report for a detailed analysis of the budget surpluses. Sir, this FY96 Budget gives every Singaporean something to shout about - school children will get more Edusave grants, both employers and employees will pay lower taxes, HDB dwellers will enjoy utility rebates and have their service and conservancy rebates extended for another year with better adjustments, and various CPF top-up schemes. Even wives and parents of NSmen are rewarded through tax reliefs. Because it is so good, many Members of the Opposition, in particular, have tried to detract by labelling it as an "election budget". But the truth is, as explained earlier by other Members, that we have all played our role well, whether as parents, wives, NSmen, workers or employers, working hard and consistently maintaining a healthy rate of productivity growth, living harmoniously with each other, are rational, determined to achieve our aspirations, and led by a competent Government, we have collectively achieved success. We have therefore, by our own efforts and the will to succeed, made it possible for the Government to be kind and generous with us in this Budget. Sir, for me, this is the best Budget I have seen in my 12 years as a Member of this House. It is balanced and meets the needs of most, if not all Singaporeans. It is so good that it makes it difficult for many of my constituents this year to fault it, unlike in the past when I had cause to voice some of their justified misgivings in this House. Indeed, Sir, the constituents of Eunos GRC taken as a whole will receive benefits through rebates in rental, SC&CC charges and utility charges alone amounting to about $12.5 million. Sir, our Finance Minister is certainly the envy of many a Finance Minister elsewhere. He is faced with this happy problem of how to reduce taxes and reward Singaporeans in the most equitable manner of achieving success together. Sir, the rebates, tax reliefs and incentives announced in the Budget are quite a mouthful. Many Singaporeans are still not fully aware of them. May I therefore suggest that the Government implement some kind of publicity programme through the media to inform Singaporeans of the changes. Sir, we should not be embarrassed by our budget surpluses. There is this temptation to want to spend our surpluses more liberally. I urge the Government to resist the clamours for more free handouts without considering whether it would weaken the will to work for Singaporeans. Neither should the Government be tempted to spend more than is necessary in order to narrow the budget surpluses. Instead we should look at how best to use this surplus to achieve our long term national objectives. In particular, Sir, we should use our surpluses to address the structural problems the country will face in the years ahead. In this regard, Sir, I am arguing for more surpluses to be channelled to the field of education and for the retraining of Singaporeans. I am happy to note that the Government will set aside another $500 million from the surpluses to the Edusave fund. But, Sir, the latter fund only benefits our younger population. The adult population does not benefit from it, at least not directly. Sir, as companies in Singapore regionalise, more and more Singaporeans have to be trained to manage our overseas investments. Many Singaporeans are ill-equipped to do such tasks. Also, as our economy restructures to be a developed one, industries will have to close down and relocate overseas. In the process, some of our adult Singaporeans will be out of job. I am therefore suggesting that part of the surpluses be channelled to a fund to be called the Regionalisation Training Fund to train Singaporeans in the necessary language skills and management skills to better equip them in their work overseas as we expand regionally. Sir, this proposal of setting up a Regionalisation Training Fund was raised by me last year during the Budget debate. I am raising this again in the hope that the Minister will look at it seriously this time. Sir, also on education and training, I am proposing that we channel part of the surpluses to a fund to be used for the training of our older and less educated Singaporeans (particularly those in their forties and early fifties) who may be out of job because of closure and relocation of our industries overseas. Many of these Singaporeans are unskilled and have low education and would find difficulty seeking alternative employment in this increasingly competitive environment. Sir, with our longer life span, many of these Singaporeans still have a good 10-20 years of working life ahead of them. We need to give them, so to say, a "second spring" instead of seeing them fade into "the autumn of their twilight years." Sir, our society has not benefitted from the economic success we have achieved if our social behaviour still lags years behind. When first mentioned, "kiasuism" was thought to be funny. "Kiasuism" is now perceived by some as an acceptable social behaviour, however, shameful it may be. Dramas which used to act out "kiasu" conduct for a laugh has caught on with the audience so much so that some thought that it is the vogue thing to do. We should correct this misconception, and teachers, parents, guardians, while themselves must show their loath at kiasu behaviour, should constantly remind their children and our young ones the importance of social graciousness and good behaviour. Sir, recently our Prime Minister has called for conscious efforts to develop ourselves to be a gracious society. This call cannot be more timely. I fully support this and urge the Minister to review its budget allocation with a view to channelling more funds towards the achievement of this goal of becoming a more gracious society. Sir, as in most things in the past, I would like to urge the Government through our civil servants to take the lead and set an example for more gracious behaviour. This call again cannot be more timely as we have just implemented the Budgeting for Results and Autonomous Agencies systems in the civil service. We should put courtesy and graciousness high on our priority list for measuring quality of service, efficiency and productivity. We should invest in our civil servants and train them for gracious behaviour and be courteous in their work. I am sure the private sector will follow suit in no time. Sir, I would like to end my speech in a cautionary note. We have had good budgets for the last 4-5 years, with each budget better than the last. Euphoria and joy will soon be displaced by an expectation that next year's budget must necessarily be even better, otherwise the Government has shortchanged us. This expectation is unrealistic and I would even say dangerous, as we might easily be lulled into complacency and an attitude that the Government has the duty to provide a scintillating budget to please everyone, forgetting that it is really Singaporeans' hard work that had made it possible for the Government to reward us according to our efforts. Singaporeans must therefore remember that so long as we all continue to strive for excellence, increase our productivity, upgrade our skills and stick to the same tried and tested formula that has secured us success and prosperity, Sir, I dare say that this very generous Budget will not be the last nor the best. With that, I beg to support the Budget.

Resolved, That the debate on the Budget Statement be proceeded with beyond 4.30 pm and the proceedings thereon be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 at this day's sitting. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget is a budget for all. The Minister for Finance must be congratulated for presenting a Government Budget that is really one that has something for every Singaporean. Singaporeans welcome this Budget. This reflects the Government's policy of enhancing the personal assets of all Singaporeans, and redistribution of wealth through schemes that in the long-term will not lead to a welfare state or develop dependence on the state, ie, developing a crutch mentality. What I would like to bring up at this time are some issues, which though not new, need more focused attention by the Government. Indirect taxation The Government's policy is to achieve a broad-based taxation system which will reinforce the work ethic, by decreasing personal and company taxes, whilst the GST will discourage unnecessary expenditure and encourage savings. There are other taxes which take into account social and economic factors, eg, the foreign workers levy and the COE to control motor vehicle population. The Minister has taken great pains in this Budget to try to make sure that all benefit in some way. It is my view, that the middle income have felt most painfully the indirect taxes imposed. For example, the maid levy, the COE, the GST are areas that affect all, but perhaps hit hardest the middle income earner, who is most likely the family to have one or more maids, because both parents are working, they want a larger car, and will probably contribute more in the GST. Those staying in non-HDB estates will also not benefit from either the MUP or IUP. The Edusave Merit Bursary Scheme does not apply to families earning more than $3,000 per month. These managers and professionals are a mobile lot, and while many are loyal Singaporeans, the temptation or lure to "greener pastures" overseas cannot be excluded. Perhaps, the Minister, with the large resources that he has, can tell the House whether my observations are valid. I will be most glad to hear from him that the much talked about "middle-income squeeze" is a fallacy. Problems of the retail industry One needs to give no facts or figures to be able to have a feel of what is happening here. This is a problem that has been discussed openly, and received wide publicity in the media. We will need no convincing that Singapore is no longer a shopper's paradise. Many Singaporeans travel overseas, and the weekend shopping spree in Johor Baru reinforces that there is a problem here. The problem can be viewed from the point of view of shops in the city area (including the CBD), and those in HDB town centres and HDB estates. It seems to be more acute in the city area, showing that the HDB town centres appear to be offering more value for money. However, both are facing similar problems - higher rentals, higher labour cost, difficulty of getting well-trained staff. What is the future of this important sector of the economy? Perhaps the Minister can give his views and also advise retailers. Rising cost of home ownership Sir, a successful Swiss friend once told me that he could not make his Singapore wife happy until he bought an apartment for the family. The Swiss, he explained to me, were very happy to rent a home. Yes, the PAP Government has achieved the almost impossible by providing home ownership to the majority. Now, some 95% or more of Singaporeans own their own home. However, the recent high escalation of home ownership is causing anxiety, especially to the young who want to start up their families. In two successful weeks in January 1996, two HDB flats were sold for more than $700,000 each: the Bishan executive maisonette for $770,000 and the Tampines flat for $745,000. According to one housing agency, agents are now "knocking on doors" in these two estates and urging owners to sell. It was also estimated that 1995 was a very good year for public housing as prices increased on average by 25% over 1994 (open market sales), while prices of private residential property increased by between 6-12%. The concern for this House must, of course, be to focus on HDB flats, especially for the first-timer and for the first time upgrader. Can the Government provide longer mortgage loans, eg, up to 30 years and also "ballooning schemes" to make it easier for young couples to own their homes, ie, they pay less now when they are earning a lesser salary and more later on when they have a bigger salary? The MAS and the Ministry of National Development need to relook into financing for the HDB units in the face of rising costs. It has also been said that when the Government sells land in a tender, there is always a "reserved price" - a minimum expectation. The question that is raised is that if the Government expects developers to reduce price, then true market values can only be reflected if there is no reserved price. Will the Minister comment on this? Rising business costs and rising cost of living Sir, higher rentals, higher salaries, higher cost of transportation are the main causes of rising business costs and rising cost of living. Will the property tax rebate be passed on as rental rebate by the private sector? Very doubtful, as the property owners themselves are complaining of higher operating costs. Has the Minister any figures to show that previous property tax rebates have been passed on to tenants? Sir, I would like to refer to Table A3.1 on page 121 of the Budget book entitled "Consumer Price Index, 1990-1995". I am especially concerned as the steepest increases in CPI are in: (1) Education, 4.2% (annual percentage increase); (2) Cooked food, 3%; (3) Seafood (uncooked), 2.8%. Numbers (2) and (3) refer to food items. As we know, many Singaporeans eat out daily and this is an important cause of concern as the cost of uncooked food is number two in the increase in CPI for 1995. In 1994 the top three were: (1) Seafood (uncooked), 7.7%; (2) Transport and communication, 6.7%; and (3) Cooked food, 4%. Sir, education, food (especially cooked food) and transportation are daily necessities. We can eat less, but eat we must. We can travel less or use cheaper modes of transport, but travel we must, at least to and from work. We must continue to educate our children, and give them the very best. Many grassroots organisations and non-profit organisations are providing good quality tuition classes and managing other educational programmes. What are the Minister's plans to assist in these areas? Sir, if I may just spend a short moment on what Mr Ling How Doong touched on, and that is, the book grants. He touched on a wide range of topics but I would like to just dwell a little bit on this matter of book grants. Sir, we as MPs and community leaders can do things on our own when we see a need. A good example is what Mr Ling has mentioned about book grants and education matters. The grassroots organisations and other charitable and non-profit organisations can do this. We as community leaders and MPs can also do this. The PAP Community Foundation has done this for many years by granting book grants. In December 1995, the PCF Executive Committee and Management Council approved 360 grants to students in the polytechnics (50 in each of the polytechnics) and universities (80 in each of the two universities) at $200 per student. The total cost of this is $72,000. Yes, Sir, we all can do something. The PAP, through the PAP Community Foundation, is doing something. What is the SDP doing? Sir, I support the motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the Finance Minister has been very generous for the 1996 Budget. Despite his generosity, I hope he is not lean to Parliament House because we have a spalling ceiling problem. I am concerned about his safety and the safety of Members there. Sir, despite that minor problem, and to get back to a more serious note, I must commend the Finance Minister for a very generous Budget for 1996. Almost all Singaporeans stand to benefit from various rebates and allocations made in this year's Budget. It is indeed the best Budget that I have heard so far in my years in Parliament. Sir, Singaporeans have benefited from the good economic growth our country has made in the last few years. Opposition parties will deny this. They always cry wolf and say nothing has become better, and people are taxed more. This can be easily debunked. My parliamentary colleagues have given clear examples and explanations which have debunked them on this issue. Sir, it is only with economic growth that more provisions could be made. If you look around, people in many countries do not enjoy such economic benefits. Many of them in these countries have to pay more through higher taxation. Taxes are increased and this is a norm. People are disturbed and they have to bear the hardship. Life for people in many of these countries has not improved. We are in a more fortunate position and we are not facing this problem and many Singaporeans have enjoyed a better life over the years. We must therefore examine why this is the case. Why have we made such good progress and people have been given more benefits over the years? We have made good progress, because of good Government, political stability, and good investments, and to some extent, good fortune. And this, I think has contributed to Singaporeans being able to enjoy a good life and good progress each year. Sir, the Opposition will always paint a negative picture about this. One must ask them to identify which countries have, in the last few years, been able to give generous benefits and tax incentives to their people. I know of very few countries in the region and elsewhere that have done so. Sir, the Singapore economy is doing well. Generous allocations have been made to various economic sectors to expand. Would such an increase, both expenditures in the public and private sectors, drive up inflation? Our inflation has been kept low at about 3% to 4%. What is the anticipated inflation rate for the year? Sir, with increase in inflation, the real income of families will be eroded, and this can affect low income families. I would perhaps like the Minister to address this growing concern facing Singaporeans. Would the Minister give an indication whether he would expect an increase in inflation this year? Sir, there is also a nagging concern about the increase in cost of living. People generally complain about this. Has cost of living really been going up steeply or is it going up steadily? I think this concern has to be addressed and clarified. Sir, the working class families have indicated to me that prices of goods and services, particularly prices of food items in their neighbourhoods, seem to have increased higher than the inflation index. I would like to see that monitoring of steep price rises be closely undertaken by the Government and action must be taken against those for over-profiteering. In the last few years, we have seen active efforts by Government to restructure and privatise public and statutory bodies. The objective of such direction is clearly spelt out by Government. Perhaps it will achieve economic efficiency. However, the outcomes and the consequences of this privatisation and restructuring exercises are less predictable. I would like to ask the Minister the overall impact of such restructuring exercises implemented by the Government on the economy. Has economic efficiency been achieved at the expense of increased prices? Sir, there are concerns that some of the restructured corporations such as Telecom, TCS, SMRT and others in the pipeline, such as Singapore Power and PSA, would be providing monopolistic services. Sir, would future price increases be capped and the charges moderated? This is important because these are all monopolies and there is a need to ensure that the consumers who are helpless would to some extent be protected against steep increases in prices of their goods and services. And with the move towards privatisation of various Government bodies, I think it is very important that this issue be further examined fully. In this respect, I would suggest a Monopolies Commission be established to deal with them and to moderate profiteering by such privatised or corporatised enterprises. Sir, in relation to the tax relief for the disabled, I would like to say that the Minister for Finance could afford to be more generous in support of families with disabled children and aged sick parents. These families deserve to be given higher tax relief so that this could reduce their financial burden to care for their dependent and disabled family members. I would also like to urge the Minister to extend Edusave grants to disabled children studying in special schools. Since these children are studying in special schools, they should be made no different from normal children who are studying in other schooling institutions. I do not think that we should deny them this benefit, Sir, because they are our children and despite their disability, they are being educated in special schools. I hope that the Minister for Finance will look into extending the Edusave grant to this group of children. Sir, I would also like the Minister to consider higher allocation of financial grants to voluntary and charitable organisations. Presently, the Government provides grants on a dollar-to-dollar basis. It would be helpful for Government to review this formula and perhaps increase the grant on a formula of 60 to 40 basis. Perhaps a one-time grant to these organisations on an annual basis, subject to good economic performance of the country, could also be considered. This itself would be a signal to encourage all those who are providing voluntary efforts in supporting community projects to enter into a greater partnership with Government to implement more programmes in helping the less able and disadvantaged in our community. Sir, I hope that the Minister will be able to look into this area as many voluntary organisations have requested for further support to enable them to do a better job. Sir, the last area that I would like to bring up is incentives for saving. We should not allow agencies and credit organisations to encourage people, particularly our young, to spend more than what they can afford. We should encourage thrift amongst our population and this is important to propel our economy further. In this respect, we should have more policies to encourage and give incentives for good saving habits. Good saving habits should start with the young. I hope that the Minister will look into this issue. And I would like to ask the Minister whether he will implement proactive policies that would encourage savings and whether current policies would be reviewed. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister for Finance and commend him for a very generous Budget for 1996.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard a number of PAP MPs praising the Finance Minister for being very generous. But we must not forget that he is being generous using the money of the citizens of Singapore. First of all, let me talk about the Government's economic principle. All along, the Government's principle on all the domestic services is that these services must be able to yield economic benefits. For example, the public bus services must not only not run into losses, but they must also ensure that the shareholders can make good profits from their operation. Now the Government wants to increase electricity tariffs. They claim that the rate of return on the investment is low. But in fact, what they really want is to make sure that the shareholders have good profits after privatisation of the Singapore Power. Of course, once this organisation, whose original responsibility was to provide essential services to the people, has been privatized, the Government would encourage the people of Singapore to buy its shares as a form of investment. Later on, if the tariffs are increased, the citizen-shareholders will be compelled to suffer in silence. If they do not agree to an increase in tariffs, there will be no return on their investment. On the other hand, if they agree to an increase in the tariffs, their cost of living would go up. Then the Government can unashamedly say, "Well, in the interest of the majority of Singaporeans, the tariffs have to go up!" In the end, the tariffs are raised. Now, these ordinary citizens who are minor shareholders may make a little money from their shares, the Government as the major shareholder will make big money. In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister pointed out that the increase in electricity tariff is to have a correct pricing of the factors of production. However, electricity is not only a factor of production for the industries. It is also an essential utility to the daily living of the ordinary people. So the Government has treated the supply of electricity as an investment and it says that we must have a good rate of return on the investment. This is not in conformity with the principle of the Government having the fundamental duty of providing essential services to the people. If the Government applies this principle of demanding returns on its investment to the other services, like the MRT system, and raise the fares in order to attain good returns on its investment, then the fares will be substantially raised. When privatising these organisations whose primary duty is to provide basic services to the people, the Government should carefully consider the consequences that may follow. First, when these Government bodies are privatised, labour costs and other costs will increase. At the same time, in order to gain sizable profits, or to attain the due returns on the investment, charges for the services provided can only increase and never decrease. Then as the major shareholder of these privatized companies, the Government would make a lot of money and they can then give a lot of hongbaos when presenting the Budget. However, come a day when we are unfortunately faced with an economic recession, and the Government's budget would have to focus on how to stimulate the economy and attract foreign investment, it will have no money left to give subsidies and rebates. Then the ordinary folks will have to pay higher tariffs with no offsets or rebates. Worse still, if they lose their jobs, how are they going to make ends meet? Secondly, upon privatisation, the public transport system and health care services will be operated in the commercial way to generate profits for its shareholders. On the other hand, they are under certain pressure where the charges for these services cannot be raised too high for fear of increasing the burden of the people. These service industries cannot substantially raise their service charges, yet they have to ensure their shareholders of a considerable return. Then, they will have to find ways and means to reduce their operational cost, at the expense of certain aspects of their operations, such as the safety measures of public transport, the quality of medical service, etc. In the long run, will this not result in deviations and getting into great trouble? Thirdly, once these bodies, whose original duty was to provide basic services to the people, are privatised, they will no longer come under the control of Government departments. One day, if the nation has to face a crisis and the cooperation of these bodies is needed, will there be a problem getting these privatized corporations to cooperate? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now talk about the Government's new principle for formulating the budget. This new principle is based on the output and performance indicators of the various departments to decide how much funds should be allocated to them. This would have far-reaching effect on Singapore. For example, if the Traffic Police sets a target of issuing 100,000 summonses for traffic offences a year, and in order to reach this target, does it mean that the Traffic Police will step up their efforts to issue more summonses? If the Police Department fixes a target of 50,000 cases of prosecution a year, what would happen if they cannot attain the target? At the same time, if the evaluation of salaries and promotion of the CEOs and senior officers of these Government departments which have become autonomous agencies are to be based on whether they can perform beyond their pre-set targets, then I am afraid Singaporeans will have to pay even higher fees for their services. Moreover, those departments whose output cannot be quantified or the nature of their services is such that the volume of output is fixed, does it mean that they will be ignored in the budget, or that they will never get what they asked for in the budget? For example, in the Ministry of Education, the number of students it serves is more or less the same every year. They are in no position to perform beyond the target of service, and hence they will have no surplus to retain. I hope that when the Government uses this new principle of budgeting, it will make public, in detail, the target of each and every autonomous agency, the funds allocated under the budget, and how the Government supplies the funds according to the output of their services, and the ratio, etc. Now, let me analyse this year's Budget. Some people say that this is one budget where the Government is sharing its wealth with the people and the newspapers are presenting it with a fanfare that the Government is giving away lots of hongbaos. Let us take a look at these hongbaos from the angle of the revenue and expenditure of the Government. 1. Since the middle income groups have paid a lot of taxes in terms of COEs and foreign workers levy, the Government has designed some tax deduction measures for them. Although the Government suffers a revenue loss of $3.75 million, it had actually collected, in the previous fiscal year, more than $3.6 billion from the relevant taxes and levies. 2. The service and conservancy charges, rentals and public utility rebates for the lower income groups may result in a revenue loss of $126 million for the Government, but, in the previous fiscal year, the Government collected $1.64 billion in terms of Goods and Services Tax (GST). 3. The so-called "sharing the wealth with the people", CPF Top-Up scheme and the Pre-Medisave Top-Up scheme may cost the Government $955 million, but on personal income tax alone, the Government's revenue was more than $2 billion. So in fact, the so-called hongbaos and the measures to distribute the wealth to the people will take up only 6% of the Government's total revenue for the year. Moreover, the Government's revenue over expenditure is more than $6 billion which will go to the reserves. Therefore, through all these policies, the Government has collected a lot of taxes from the people. Then in the Budget, it is just taking a drop from the ocean, but it plays up the whole thing and says that it is sharing the wealth with the people. "Eating up the big and paying out the small", this is the essence of this year's Budget!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1996 Budget is undoubtedly an excellent one from many perspectives and I have no hesitation in supporting the motion. Today, I would like to touch upon the issue of Singapore Power's privatisation which was mentioned during the Budget Speech by the Minister for Finance about two weeks ago. The announcement by the Government to postpone the privatisation of Singapore Power came as a surprise to Singaporeans. But the bigger surprise to the public was the reasoning given. The public had up to now the utmost faith in the Government's plan for privatisation. They believe that Government's plans are always well-thought through. Unfortunately, this time, the announcement to delay Singapore Power's privatisation leaves the public askance. The Government gave low profitability as the reason for postponing privatisation. Was profitability not known when the decision to privatise was made? Government has said that profitability became apparently low when accounting methods of Singapore Power were changed to comply with commercially common methods. One would expect that Singapore Power's accounts would have been adjusted when the decision to privatise was taken. To announce at this late stage that changing the accounting methods resulted in low profitability can only suggest one of two things. There is more that has not been disclosed, or the Government has not been thorough in its research before taking the decision to privatise. Some even wonder if the postponement has anything to do with the recent corruption case involving a former top official of PUB. The public would need more details to be persuaded that the reason for the postponement is valid. Regrettably, some confidence has been lost. Next, I would like to question the purpose of privatisation. Some of the more obvious purposes would be (1) to allow public to share in the economy and have a direct stake in it; (2) to increase the shareholder base; (3) to enhance Singapore's stock market size; (4) to increase efficiency and competitiveness; (5) to raise capital; and (6) to facilitate expansion into the region. I would like to talk on increasing efficiency. One of the ways of increasing efficiency is to increase competition for Singapore Power. However, the limited size of the Singapore market and the heavy capital investments necessary for power plants and distribution networks provide an entry barrier for any potential competitor. Hence, Singapore Power is expected to maintain a monopoly for many more years to come. As a public company, Singapore Power's conventional objective would be to maximise returns for the shareholders. The Government, by announcing that an increase in tariffs is necessary to make it attractive to potential shareholders, has set a precedent that it is acceptable to simply increase tariffs to please the shareholders. As it has a monopoly, consumers have no choice but to comply. Of course, the argument goes that the public are also shareholders who will benefit from profits made by Singapore Power. But the main beneficiaries will be the bigger shareholders, including foreign investors. There has to be a control mechanism for Singapore Power charges. I believe this has been in place in the privatisation programmes elsewhere as in the UK. Pricing has to be based on a formula based on cost of production and not profitability. To use return on equity as a measure to guarantee a profit level for a public company is difficult to be accepted by the public. To guarantee a return would, in the long run, mean passing on inefficiency to consumers. A utility board should set pricing controls until competition is available. The Government also announced that Singapore Power tariffs are low compared to the region. A closer look shows only Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and the Philippines are higher. However, if we compare the ratio of average tariff charged to cost per unit, as illustrated in the chart which I have distributed to Members with your permission, we find that Singapore is third highest in the region, next to Malaysia and Korea. This means that Singapore's tariffs are relatively high. With average tariff at 12.37 and cost per unit at 8.04, the tariff to cost ratio for Singapore is 1.

538. If Singapore Power is supposedly operating at an efficient level, then how is it not generating sufficient return when price exceeds cost by more than half? If the tariff is increased by 12-14% as proposed, the tariff to cost ratio would rise to 1.72-1.75, bringing Singapore to the second highest position in the region. In conclusion, as Singapore Power is providing an essential service to the community and as it enjoys a monopolistic position, the Government may want to review the whole approach to privatisation for Singapore Power. The Government should set up an independent committee to study this, including the option of running Singapore Power as a cooperative. The committee can also come up with a recommendation on fair pricing in the light of the created monopoly. If at the end of it, the Government feels that Singapore Power still needs to be privatised, the main reason being to enable Singaporeans to have a direct stake in the economy, as stated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, then the Government should not delay the privatisation. This is because if the Government intends to make Singapore Power more profitable, citizens should benefit from the exercise since, after all, the revenue will be derived from them. If, on the other hand, the Government would still prefer Singapore Power's privatisation to be delayed a few years to command a more attractive listing price from major shareholders, the Government should offer share options to Singaporeans now, to be exercised when Singapore Power is finally listed. The offer price should be based on present value with an appropriate discount. The Government will then not be seen to profit from its citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the FY96 Budget is the most generous bonus budget in memory. The total tax rebates given away by the Government amount close to $2.45 billion. It has something for everyone. I must congratulate the Finance Minister for being so generous. Of course, to do so, there must be sufficient budget surplus. Our budget surplus reflects the able management of the nation's economy by the Government. Every working adult has contributed to our budget surplus in one way or another; each of us playing a different role. But, ultimately, it is the leadership of our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, that underpins the foundation of our economic success. My concern is this. There are so many goodies in the Budget that this might plant the seed of dependency in our people. And this is the very mentality which this Government has tried its very best to discourage. I am concerned that repeated direct rebates such as HDB service charges and PUB rebates might establish a tradition which neither this Government nor future governments can reverse without a heavy political cost. On the other hand, Sir, I support the concept of sharing the fruits of a booming economy with our fellow Singaporeans. I must also admit that every other means of sharing has its own pitfalls. Handing out rebates seems to be the most acceptable one. Obviously, sharing the nation's wealth is indeed a difficult balancing act. In this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would concentrate on the fiscal policy of the Government and take this opportunity to examine the trend of our budget surpluses over the last five years, along the same line as Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has done. Despite the rebates totalling $2.45 billion this year, the estimated FY96 surplus is still $6.41 billion. On the other hand, if we had not given away this $2.45 billion, we would be looking at an estimated surplus of $8.86 billion or 6.8% of the GDP, the largest in our nation's history. My question to the Minister is this. Is this a one-time phenomenon as a result of a one-off economic boom in certain sectors? Or is this the result of our tax and non-tax measures coupled with an increasing tax base? Sir, not being a Member of the Estimates Committee, I ploughed through some figures and I have prepared a chart and a table depicting the previous years' surpluses including the estimated, revised and actual numbers, which you have given me permission to distribute earlier. Sir, if we look at the numbers, the actual budget surpluses from FY90 to FY94, one will notice that the actual budget surpluses have ballooned from $2.54 billion in FY90 to $8.57 billion in FY94. As a proportion of the GDP, the corresponding number has increased from 3.9% to 7.9%. The Minister in his speech has stated that budget surpluses have averaged 4.4% of the GDP over the last eight years. However, since the surpluses really have started to take off almost vertically in FY91, we should be looking at the numbers since 1991 if we want to determine the trend. Therefore, if we just look at the actual budget surplus numbers from FY91 to FY94, the average is 6.3%. This is significantly higher than the impression given by the Minister. Furthermore, if we look at the differences between the estimated budget surpluses and the actual budget surpluses, it seems that the Ministry has been doing a rather poor job in forecasting accurately its revenues. At this point, I echo Dr Lee's sentiments about urging the Finance Minister to be more accurate in his forecast. For FY90 to FY94, the Ministry of Finance had consistently put the estimated surplus at around $1-$1.5 billion, when the actual figures had been increasing steadily. Even in FY94, the estimated surplus was given as $1.58 billion, when the actual surplus the previous year had already reached $6.32 billion. Only in FY95 did the Finance Ministry up its estimated surplus to $5.75 billion or 4.8% of GDP. I find it inexplicable that the Ministry had been consistently under-estimating so much for so many years. One might want to find out that the revised FY95 budget surplus is only $4.81 billion, which is 4% of the GDP. This is also the first time that the revised number has dipped below the estimated number since 1991. Is this a reversal of the trend? Maybe not. Given the track record of the last four years, I would not be surprised if an extra few billion dollars would materialise from somewhere, thereby pushing the actual FY95 budget surplus even higher.

4.40 pm I would like to ask the Minister a simple question. Why is it that despite all the tax cuts over the years - the Minister had been announcing tax cuts over the last 2-3 years in the budget - our budget surplus continues to escalate? Mr Chew Heng Ching has given some answers and said that if we look at the Report of the Estimates Committee, we can get some answers. But I would like to hear it from the Minister himself. I would like to find out whether these surpluses are structural in nature. In other words, whether it is part of our tax structure that continues to yield such tax surpluses. Or is it due to the increasing larger tax base with a larger number in the workforce? The Minister in his speech also referred to non-tax measures like COEs and foreign workers levy developing into significant revenue sources. Can he provide greater details, please? How much does salary escalation or asset appreciation play in the revenue increase? If salary escalation and asset appreciation play a significant role, then tax revenue increases would be almost like an automatic result of what I would call "bracket creep". "Bracket creep" means that the taxable incomes are pushed into higher tax brackets over the years. If that is the case, perhaps tax rates could be cut further to achieve a reasonable budget surplus, which brings me to the topic of what is a reasonable budget surplus. The estimated FY96 surplus is 4.9% of GDP. The revised FY95 budget surplus is 4.0% of GDP. The Minister in his speech mentioned that the average budget surplus is 4.4% of GDP. Is this a coincidence or is the Minister paving the ground for a new and higher budget surplus target? Prior to FY95, we seem to be quite happy with 2% GDP budget surpluses. Sir, we should bear in mind that we are actually at this point talking about percentage of GDP. Even at a constant 2% GDP, as our GDP grows by around 7% a year, we are still going to have an increasingly larger amount of surpluses in our budget. Before we accept 4% as the norm, we must satisfy ourselves that there are good reasons to escalate our surpluses to 4% of GDP. Is 4% GDP surplus a problem? That will depend on our tax philosophy. What is tax? The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "money to be paid by people or businesses to a government for public purposes." Many Western governments will be more than happy if they can achieve a balanced budget, not to mention surpluses of this magnitude. At this juncture, I would again quote from the Minister's speech. He said: `Our target is to run a modest budget surplus over the long run so that the public sector does not drain resources from the economy.' What does he mean by a "modest budget surplus"? I would like the Minister to enlighten this House whether a 4% GDP budget surplus is consistent with his statement? Or would a 2% GDP budget surplus be more relevant? If the latter is true, then the conclusion is that our existing tax structure is still high despite all the tax cuts announced and there is still plenty of room to move in that direction. The question is, of course, whether to tax and then share the tax collected with all the people or to tax lightly and leave more money in the pocket of the people, to begin with. This budget continues to be progressive in placing the major tax burden on the wealthy and giving rebates to the poor and less wealthy. I use the words "less wealthy" because I find it difficult to describe people living in 5-room HDB flats as poor. On top of that, this budget continues to provide a significant portion, close to $450 million of the HDB Development Budget, to HDB upgrading programmes like the IUP and the MUP. As a result of these upgrading programmes over the past few years, many older HDB estates today are newer, cleaner and have better facilities than many landed residential estates. For instance, in my constituency, children from the landed residential estates go to the HDB estate in Clementi to make use of the fun equipment in the children's playground. Many of the landed residential estates in Bukit Timah are now 20-30 years old. Their common infrastructure such as drains and pavements are crumbling. One of my constituents has upgraded from a HDB flat to a landed property and, by all measures, she should be very happy. Instead, she found herself having left the first world and moved to a third world, figuratively speaking. She found that she has to endure more mosquitoes, broken drain with ponding water, broken pavement, and non-existing public transportation, living in a so-called "rich man's" area. Finally, she also does not have the friendly town council to bring her problem to. So I have only one favour to ask the Minister in this Budget. Rather than asking the various Government departments to repair the infrastructure piecemeal, I urge the Government to appropriate a portion of the budget surplus to implement a new scheme. Let us call it a Landed Property Infrastructure Upgrading Programme (LIUP) to rejuvenate the crumbling infrastructure in landed housing estates. A nation-wide upgrading scheme with an integrated approach would yield a far better result than doing it piecemeal. I think it is about time that those who live in landed estates could participate in our Prime Minister's new vision: Make Singapore the best home. Sir, as I said earlier, everyone I spoke to is happy with the Budget. This Government has met its promise to share the wealth of the economic growth with our people. Let us hope that this philosophy is maintained in future. I believe this will remain so under the leadership of our Prime Minister as he leads our nation into the 21st century. I urge all Singaporeans to support him in his vision and make Singapore the best home for Singaporeans.

( In Malay): A responsible Government and sensitive towards the people's welfare will always endeavour to work hard to fulfil all the responsibilities that have been put to the Government. It has been proven that the PAP Government has been able to perform its duties excellently not only economically but also in all the other areas. I believe Singaporeans are comfortable if the present Government continues to lead our nation. We are grateful to have an efficient Government and with the support of the people the Government has been able to table a very good Budget this year. The Budget statement by Dr Richard Hu has not caused any unhappiness. Instead, he has brought about happiness to many people, as there are many handouts given to the individuals, the family and the corporations. I hope that this will continue to be good. I hope the Minister for Finance will give out more to those people who will have to look after their unemployed parents, those who do not have any CPF accounts, and more so for those without personal savings. It is most heartening that many are still looking after their aged parents without passing the burden over to the Government. I hope the Government will not set up more homes for the aged and indirectly the people will be nurtured with the responsibility to look after their parents. It is different from what has been asked by the Opposition Member, ie, to ask the Government to set up more homes for the aged. As for individuals who have lost their parents and will have to take care of their own siblings who are schooling, consideration should be given in tax reliefs or concessions which will relieve them of their responsibility and indirectly it will nurture in them to be responsible individuals within the society and not dependent on the Government. I hope the Finance Minister will consider my proposal in future so that our Budget will always have a bigger surplus. I believe the Finance Minister will always work towards a budget surplus and I am proud to be one of the members of the present Government. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister for Finance regarding the distinction between a Singapore citizen and a permanent resident. If $200 is credited to a Medisave account, $150 for the payment of PUB bills and a 10% rebate on income tax is given to both Singapore citizens and permanent residents, I think there is no distinction between a Singapore citizen who voted for us and a permanent resident who did not vote for us. I feel that the interests of Singapore citizens who have voted for the Government should be given preference to the non-citizens. In this way, I hope the Minister for Finance will consider seriously the interests of Singapore citizens as compared to the permanent residents. Mr Deputy Speaker, last year, during the debate for the financial year 1995/96, the Minister for Trade and Industry has explained in detail measures which will be taken by the Government in respect of the use of water sources. I would like to raise the same matter again so that the Government will be able to explain all the measures which the Government has taken to overcome the water supply for Singapore. I would like to know what has been achieved so far and what are the problems faced by the Government and how such issues have been overcome or resolved. I would like to know what further measures the Government is thinking of in future. I feel that the issue of water is significant towards the livelihood of Singapore, especially in terms of the economic aspect. I believe our competent Government will always try to fulfil the aspirations of the people. Sir, I support this budget which has been tabled by the Minister for Finance.

Sir, the economic performance in 1995 was impressive. We have steady growth, a healthy balance of payments of $12.2 billion or so and strong foreign reserves amounting to more than $97 billion. The Budget indeed brought good news to one and all, contrary to what some of the Opposition MPs have been saying. It is the right thing to do. Whilst the economy is doing well, the fruits of success should be shared by all. A friend from China commented that Singapore seems to be using capitalistic means to achieve socialist goals. If by socialism he means the belief in sharing of wealth and improving the standard of living of the people, then indeed Singapore has achieved more than most, if not all, the socialist countries in the world. But the more wealthy citizens have not been left out in Singapore for they too have benefitted from lower income tax, property tax and lower estate duty. Dr Hu's approach is, as usual, one of caution and quiet confidence. Recognising rising business costs and the widespread concern, he has reduced corporate tax to 26%. The reduction is welcome and it is unlikely to over-stimulate the economy. High rental and wages and labour shortage are problems confronting all developed countries. As we progress upwards, these problems are likely to get worse. It is therefore important for the Government to explore all possible options to moderate such increases. Sir, the stamp duty on property transfers has been reduced by adjusting the threshold values for the three rates, ie, 1-3%. In effect, this would result in maximum savings of $3,000 on property transfers of $360,000 and above. However, the 3% rate is still high, given the high property prices today. For example, even with the adjusted threshold values, the stamp duty for property transfers of a million dollars amounts to $24,600. As an indirect tax, stamp duty remains a very high tax and a reduction in rate rather than adjusting threshold values would be preferable. The reason given for not reducing the rate is that we want to curb speculation in properties. However, for genuine buyers and people who are upgrading and in line with the national objective of asset enhancement, people who buy a property once in five years or 10 years should not be made to pay the 3% stamp duty. Perhaps we can impose 3% on those who buy and sell properties for speculation, but for the genuine upgrader, a lower stamp duty of 1% or 1 1/2% will do. Sir, the GST has been implemented effectively. The Minister and his team of tax officials ought to be complimented for a highly efficient exercise in tax collection. However, I notice that the GST is also applied on the PUB tax which, by definition, is not a fee for the provision of utility services. It is a tax on PUB charges. I remember it was Dr Goh Keng Swee who introduced it in the early 70s to encourage the conservation of the use of electricity and water. Since GST is imposed on the total PUB bill amount, including the tax component, GST has become in this case a tax on tax. I recall Dr Hu had gone to great length last year to explain that the GST was not a tax on tax. Can the Minister review the need to levy GST on the PUB tax? Whilst the amount involved is small, the principle of consistency should, I think, be followed. Sir, in this year's Budget, the sum of $150 million has been set aside by the Revenue Division of the Ministry of Finance for relocating the Singapore Turf Club from Bukit Timah to Kranji. I am certain that the Singapore Turf Club is more than capable of devising schemes of various descriptions to finance the relocation of its facilities to Kranji. For example, with the use of modern technology, wireless communications and smart phones, off-course betting can raise its revenue significantly. The Singapore Turf Club can explore other options to divert bets placed with illegal bookmakers to the Turf Club. With electronic betting systems, the Club can offer the convenience of placing a bet anywhere and anytime. Punters and race-goers need little persuasion to part with their money in any case. Would the Minister consider reallocating all or part of the $150 million to other more worthy causes, for example, the National Computer Board's IT Cluster Development Fund or the NSTB's R&D grants which will benefit Singapore in a more meaningful and tangible way in the long run? 5.02 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget Statement announced by the Minister for Finance. It is indeed a generous Budget, a hongbao Budget for all Singaporeans. It is also pro-growth, where the business sector is concerned. There are cuts in personal, corporate and property taxes, a series of CPF top-ups, rebates on HDB rentals and utility bills, cuts in estate and stamp duties, personal relief for National Servicemen and even for their parents and spouses. For businessmen concerned about rising operating costs and the reduced competitiveness of the economy, the Government has introduced a series of tax-cutting measures aimed at maintaining the conduciveness of the business environment. However, there are areas where the Finance Minister might have done more. For example, the one percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate is half what it could have been. A two percentage point cut in corporate taxes will be better for the entire corporate sector, in view of rising operating costs, particularly with the pending increases of electricity bills, a most fundamental element of operating cost. The Minister in his Budget speech has mentioned that Singapore Power's (SP) electricity tariffs are too low, and that the Government will raise them gradually over several years to enable SP to earn adequate returns on its capital. I have discussed this issue with our grassroots and with several local entrepreneurs. They are of the opinion that SP is already making adequate returns on its current capital employed and the Government should not increase electricity tariff rates just to float SP on the stock exchange. Moreover, the Minister, through his prudent policies, has been able to maintain budget surplus averaging 4.4% of GDP over the last eight years. In view of such healthy budget surpluses, I hope the Minister will delay the floating of SP for a few more years so that electricity tariff rates can be maintained at its current affordable rates. Although this year's budget has been most generous, the Minister has left out budget considerations for a very important segment of our population, ie, our local entrepreneurs who need to look overseas for business opportunities. In the 1995 budget, the Minister announced that the pool of venture capital funds to help local small and medium sized entrepreneurs (SMEs) to venture overseas increased by 33% from $2.6 billion in 1993 to an estimated $3.5 billion in 1994. According to the 1995 Economic Survey of Singapore, the pool of venture funds under management in Singapore as at January 1995 was $5.3 billion. May I ask the Minister for the number of SMEs that has benefited from such venture capital funds and the amount of money disbursed to such SMEs. I hope for the next Budget, the Minister will provide incentives specially to our SMEs so as to enable them to grow to become Singapore multi-nationals. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that this Budget is a very generous one. Almost all Singaporeans, whether they are old, young, male or female, will be given something. The Government has once again shown that if economic performance is good, it will share the budget surplus with all Singaporeans. There is one area, however, which this Budget did not address, that is, the training and continuing education of workers. This is an area which we cannot over-emphasize. Singapore is now a "more advanced developing country". Compared with the developed nations such as Japan and Britain, or the Asian NIEs such as Taiwan and South Korea, we are lagging behind in the skills and education level of our workers. We must therefore redouble our efforts in promoting skills upgrading and continuing education. Otherwise, as cost pressure builds up because of continued economic growth, businesses will relocate elsewhere and our workers will be hard hit and left without a job. Sir, the number of firms in Singapore with less than 50 workers has risen from 108,500 in 1991 to 129,000 in 1994, an increase of 19%. Correspondingly, the number of workers in these firms rose from 569,000 to 581,800, an increase of about 2%. In contrast, the number of firms having 50 or more workers has increased by only 2% from 3,007 in 1991 to 3,055 in 1994. The number of workers in these firms actually fell 4% from 690,000 to 662,800 over the same period. By 1994, small firms made up 98% of total firms compared to 97% in 1991. In terms of workers, small firms employed 47% of total workforce in 1994 compared to 45% in 1991. Statistics on workers training have shown that skills upgrading is unsatisfactory among small firms. Although these firms employ close to half of our workforce, they collectively spend only about 1% of their payroll on training, far short of the 4% national target. And in view of the increasing trend of more and more workers working in small firms, there is urgency in giving training of workers in small firms a much needed boost. Sir, the Government should identify what industry we want to promote and the skills needed and set up skills-based training centres. Workers can be trained in these centres on specific skills such as precision engineering, furniture making or even motor or aircon repair which is now more sophisticated because of higher technology. If Government is not prepared to set up these centres, then it should encourage industry associations or private agencies to set up these centres. Because equipping these centres is costly, Government should give a grant or allow tax incentives for the setting up of such centres. Workers going for training in these centres should also be subsidised either by SDF or a separate training fund set up by the Government. This way of providing skills specific training, I believe, will be more effective and will benefit workers from small firms. Sir, technology is changing so rapidly and if Singaporeans do not update themselves continually, they will find themselves losing very quickly their competitive edge. At the same time, we should also encourage Singaporeans to upgrade their professional or educational level so that they can increase their effectiveness and productivity in their jobs. We must therefore emphasize the importance of continuing education among Singaporeans. This we can do by giving higher tax relief for such activities and widening the scope of approved courses eligible for tax relief. Can the Minister consider this? Sir, in previous Budgets, procreation policies were introduced. After so much talk in the past year about the importance of family togetherness and parents transmitting the right values to our children, many expect this year's Budget to be a pro-family budget. However, not enough measures were included in the Budget to promote this important objective. First, I would like to see that tax incentives be given to encourage part-time work arrangement for women with children. All of us know that the best way of bringing up children is for the parents to spend enough time with them and transmit the right values to them. But the economic reality of Singapore today is such that many married women had to work. We are therefore facing a dilemma between our economic objective and our social or family objective. The ideal situation, I believe, is for our married women to work part-time, especially when their children are young. Perhaps the Minister should give tax breaks for companies to provide employment for married women with children on a part-time basis. Second, I would like to see tax incentives for companies to set up creches at the work place. I know Government is already providing subsidies for child care. But to enable working women to send their children to a creche at their work place will not only give them a lot of convenience, it will also give the mother the opportunity during lunch breaks to care for their children. Third, I feel that the SOTUS scheme, as announced by the Minister, should allow married women with young children and not working to have the top-up without the requirement to contribute $500. This is because those who chose to stay at home may not be because their husbands have a high income. Many chose to stay at home because they want to look after their children. The co-payment will not make a difference to those husbands who have a high income. But it will be a burden to those whose income is low. Sir, I hope the Minister could seriously consider my suggestions. I support the Budget.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Finance Minister for this year's Budget and express my support for it. The feedback we have received from the people is that this is a generous Budget, showing the Government's care and concern for the people. Coming at the Lunar New Year festive season, this Budget is indeed a big hongbao for everyone. The Minister stated that when the economy is performing well, we will share the wealth with the people of Singapore. This is a correct long-term policy. In other words, when we enjoy budget surpluses, we can afford to share the fruit of our economic success with the people. This is one way for the Government to express its appreciation for the hard work of the people. As mentioned by the Minister, we are a small country. So how to allocate effectively the resources and make good use of the limited resources, how to make this cost of resources be properly reflected in our policies, are questions we have to deal with very carefully and prudently. We should set aside a budget for mass communication work to enable the people to better understand the long-term policies of the Government and what the Government's programmes are over the long term, that is to say, we want to make our resources reflect the cost. In other words, we must let the people understand that we must pay for the goods and services at market prices, and how to balance the purchasing power with such prices. I think this is a very important matter. I would like the Minister for Finance to consider that, on a long term, we should not go on the path of straight welfarism. We must balance our budget. I think for basic necessities, like health care, public transport, community development, education, cultural development, etc, the Government must take the basic responsibility by providing adequately for the people. I think more importantly, all these goods and services over the long term must be accessible and affordable to the people. In recent years, the Minister for Finance has been bringing good news to the people of Singapore, year after year. So every year, the people of Singapore expect the Government to announce more goodies for the people. But as I mentioned earlier, maybe we have to set aside some budget for mass communication work, that is to say, we must refine the art and skill in the allocation and distribution of wealth, so that people will be grateful to the Government for the sharing of wealth with them. Here, I would like to raise some issues on public education, skill training for the workers and community development. The Minister for Finance has, in this Budget, granted tax reliefs to the National Servicemen, their parents and wives. I think this is very creative indeed. It is a wonderful way to show our appreciation to the sacrifices made by our National Servicemen and members of their families. As we encourage individuals and companies to regionalise, the Minister for Finance and perhaps the Minister for Labour may consider creating some incentives to encourage the wives and children to travel with their husbands and fathers on overseas assignments, so that the family unit can remain intact. Some special allowances or grants for children's education or wife's allowance or relief should be considered. The participation rate in our workforce by women is 51%. This is because most mothers want to spend more time with their children at home. We cannot deny the fact that if both parents go out to work, their children will be somewhat neglected. Relationship between the parents and the children will be diluted. As such, we have to step up our efforts in public education and the promotion of family values. However, when I look at the Budget this year, there is only some $200,000 allocated for the promotion of family values, under the Ministry of Community Development. $1 million over 5 years is, in my opinion, inadequate for this purpose. I feel that the most effective way to promote family values is to go via the mass media and television, for example, through TV programmes like the Extraordinary People, On the Lifeline, etc. This kind of programme will help us to build a more caring society and family values. The Government should regard expenditure in this regard as investment rather than expenditure. I think more should be allocated for this purpose. Next, on the dollar-for-dollar subsidy for voluntary charity projects, construction and renovation of premises for charitable organisations. According to feedback received from my friends and the grassroots, the Government has given them quite a lot of grants and support. But these old buildings which are given to them often have a lot of problems in maintenance and renovation. These volunteer workers, whose primary intention is to help the charitable organisations take care and look after the less privileged in our society, frequently end up spending a lot of time on fund raising rather than doing the charitable work proper. As a result, they have less time to look after these unfortunate people. I think we should take the load out of these volunteers by granting them more funds so that they can have more time to look after the poor and needy. Over the past two to three years, the Government has been giving a lot of help to the low-income groups. We have already all kinds of schemes and programmes in place such as the Small Families Assistance Scheme, the Edusave Bursary Scheme, the Medisave scheme as well as the various rebates for HDB conservancy and service charges, rentals, etc. But there are some families in the $1,600 to $2,500 income group staying in 3-room HDB flats who are not eligible for this kind of assistance. In some cases, if the sole breadwinner in the family falls sick or for some reasons is unable to work, the whole family will suffer financially. We need to look into their problems. We should be more flexible in our dealing with such cases. I also mentioned just now that we have invested a lot of money in the education of the younger generation. This is a move in the right direction. I believe we have allocated more than $300 million a year in the expenditure of one university. Can we not also set aside some money for both the younger and older generations of workers who are creating wealth for us? Are we giving them the care due to them, especially in their education, training and retraining? I strongly believe that we should consider setting up an Education Reserve Fund for the workers and employees because these people have family commitments. When they apply for admission to the Open University, to upgrade their skills and knowledge, or go for higher training, they would need a lot of financial assistance. So I feel it is regrettable that in this Budget, there is no concrete proposal to look after the group that I have mentioned, that is, the workers that need training and further education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that Singapore is a very fortunate country. Our people are very fortunate. Every year, we have budget surpluses and, sometimes, we are even having problems finding ways to make use of these surpluses. On the whole, the Government has already fulfilled its promises. As Members of Parliament, we should, as far as possible, in this rather good budget, ask the Minister for Finance to consider our suggestions to improve the quality of our workforce.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many words have been used inside this House and outside to describe this year's Budget Statement presented by Dr Richard Hu, Minister for Finance. To me, this is an excellent Budget with something for everyone. I have sat through quite a few Budget Statements in this House and I can safely say that this is the most generous one which combines tax cuts, Share Top-Up Schemes, rebates and tax exemptions. Despite these generous transfers back to the people, the Government will still end up with a surplus of more than $7 billion for the year 1996. Sir, Singaporeans must stand up and congratulate the Government for its fine management of the economic affairs of our nation. This is no mean effort, considering what is happening around us in the world. Sir, I would specifically like to comment on three areas covered in the Budget Statement. Firstly, Government has raised the estate duty exemption on property from $3 million to $9 million. Last year, during the debate in the Committee on Supply on the Ministry of Finance, I pleaded with the Finance Minister to have the limit raised rather modestly. I do not have to tell you what answer I got last year. However, Sir, I am extremely grateful to the Finance Minister for raising the level from $3 to $9 million. But I wonder why such generosity. Sir, I also welcome the accelerated depreciation allowance for approved energy efficient equipment and efficient pollution control equipment. Under this scheme, the accelerated depreciation allowance will be for a period of one year which means capital expenditure can be expensed off in one year. This will certainly go a long way to help conserve energy and protect the environment. While this is welcome, I am wondering whether a similar scheme can also be introduced for labour efficient equipment. Labour is a scarce resource in Singapore and over dependence on foreign workers can cause all sorts of problems. For example, the construction industry, which is heavily dependent on labour will certainly take advantage if such a scheme can be introduced. A similar scheme for labour efficient equipment will not only improve productivity and efficiency, but, more importantly, it will lead to less dependence on foreign workers. Maybe the Ministry of Labour and the Finance Ministry can examine this proposal. My third area of concern refers to the retail sector. Many Members in this House have spoken about the problems of the retail sector and I just want to quote from the Economic Survey: `The volume of retail sales grew by a modest 2.6% in 1995. Most sub-sectors performed weakly. Over the past few years, retail sales have been adversely affected by a number of factors. These are the diversion of consumer spending to asset purchases like car and private property, slower tourist arrivals and lower spending per tourist and a growing tendency for Singaporeans to shop abroad.' Added to this is the factor of the strong Singapore dollar. The only break for this sector from this Budget is the reduction in property tax. Hopefully, the landlords will respond to the Minister's call to pass on the savings in full to their tenants. Sir, the effect of the property tax reduction on the battered retail industry, I believe, will only be very marginal. The problem may be a larger one, even a structural one. There are too many players in the retail sector, overbuilding of retail space, development of regional centres, changing patterns of tourist spending. So I believe tax breaks alone will not solve the problems facing the industry. There has to be a shake out and some may have to go under. The Government can help by being more flexible to changes. There is, at this moment, an over supply of retail space and at the same time office rentals are soaring because of shortage. I am told by some developers that they would be happy to convert their current retail space into office space, if the Government can be a little bit more flexible in their approvals and also a bit generous. If their request for conversion is granted, I believe we will be solving two problems in one, ie, over capacity in the retail sector and shortage of office space. By agreeing and making conversion easy, the Government will be helping the retail sector tide over the present difficulties. Maybe the Government should have more discussions with developers on this issue. Any assistance from the Government at this point will be timely. In conclusion, Sir, let me once again thank the Minister for a very generous Budget and hope that this will be the direction of future Budgets, barring unforeseen circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the Budget Statement for fiscal year 1996. Sir, this year's Budget Statement indeed contained several good news, to the extent that it is no exaggeration to describe it as "too good to be true". Almost everyone that I spoke to reacted that they were very pleased with the Budget. If there is any complaint, it is that it is very difficult to fault the Budget. Not surprising though as the benefits cover a wide spectrum of our society. As such, there should be no quarrel this time around as to whether it is pro-worker, pro-business or pro-individual. Simply, it is pro-everyone and perhaps the most appropriate label to attach to it is the "people's budget". Sir, the Ministry of Finance deserves the highest accolade for once again being able to generate a surplus of $7 billion for the current fiscal year. If I am not mistaken, this is the fifth consecutive year that the Government has been able to share the fruits of our economic development with our people. This speaks volumes for the Ministry of Finance for its judicious handling of our nation's financial resources. However, Government policies alone are not enough, as it must not be forgotten that the hard work put in by our people has also contributed to this creation of wealth. Despite this sterling performance, some quarters - and I hope they are in the minority - are cynical by commenting that what the Government gives with one hand, it takes back with another. Can these cynics substantiate their claim? If this was true, how do we explain from the social indicators that Singaporeans are better off? Examples are real wages have risen by 5% per year over the past five years; home ownership has reached 92% and 75% of Singaporeans now own shares. Given the scenario I have just mentioned, I am confident that Singaporeans are discerning enough and cannot be easily hoodwinked. On the contrary, I believe that our people understand and appreciate what the Government is doing. However, we must be pragmatic and realistic by being fully aware of the philosophy behind these give-aways and not assuming that this happy situation will be around year after year and thereby raise unrealistic expectations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on specific issues, I would like first to touch on rebates pertaining to HDB rentals. Whilst I applaud the decision to further assist both 1- and 2-room households by increasing to three and two months net rent rebates respectively (against two and one month respectively last year), I am of the view that the Government could have been more generous. I would like to call on the Ministry of Finance to consider giving additional rebates, maybe up to six months, in the coming fiscal year for these low-income families to further alleviate their financial burden, as I believe the additional amount involved can be comfortably absorbed by the good budget surplus. Next, I support the view expressed by my other colleagues from the labour movement on the absence of new financial incentives for workers' training in the Budget. This is indeed a disappointment as we have been harping on the importance and the pressing need for training and retraining for our workers irrespective of age. By not having some new incentives, we will put the older workers and those employed in small and medium enterprises at a disadvantage. This is because there is little or no opportunity at all for this group of people to undergo training, as many of the SMEs they are employed in have not been involved in training, as they are too preoccupied with bottom-line profits and survival. Surely the Government can do more to act as a major catalyst by giving financial incentives to encourage training of low-income workers in order to keep them employable. Sir, in this connection, I would like to urge the Government to be more pro-active in rendering whatever financial assistance possible to stimulate SMEs to train their employees. On this note, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance. 5.36 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget presented by Dr Richard Hu. And I would like to join other MPs who have expressed appreciation to the Finance Minister for a very good Budget. As a unionist, I am particularly touched by concessions extended to the lower-income segment of our population. These people deserve whatever assistance they can get from the more fortunate among us, and not just from the Government. Dr Hu has lowered the minimum tax rate for business and introduced a series of measures to lessen the tax burden of individual taxpayers as well. In a word, every single taxpayer in Singapore needs to pay less this year than last year. But I regret to note that some people have chosen to dub this an election budget. What evidence have these critics to offer to justify such a claim? What they failed to see is that the pattern of concessions had been set some years ago. But they are so fixed in their mindset that they cannot appreciate the generosity of the Government. It is wrong of these critics to say that the Budget favours the well-to-do, leaving just crumbs for the lower-income. They come to this conclusion simply because savings from the high end of taxpayers are more substantial than those from the lower end. But this is to be expected. What is it that these critics would have our Government do? Introduce a tax system that will drive away those who could earn more because they are more enterprising? Would the lower-income workers benefit if the higher-income earners pack up and go? Surely not. Sir, let me now refer to a recent discussion by the Feedback Unit on the Budget. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a report published in the Straits Times on 2nd March 1996 quoting one of my fellow union leaders, Mr A. Nithiah Nandan, as saying that he welcomed the utility bill rebate, but hoped that the Budget was not an election Budget, as this would mean no more rebates next year. I was shocked when I read it. Surely, as a responsible trade union leader, Mr Nithiah should have known better than to come to such a conclusion. Or could it be that he was misquoted, as I have been misquoted on a number of occasions? The truth is that he was indeed misquoted. But what did the Straits Times do to put things right? On its 5th March issue, under the heading "What it should have been", the Straits Times said that Mr Nithiah Nandan has clarified - yes, the word used was "clarified" - "that what he said was that it was unhealthy to brush the Budget aside as an election Budget, and that by doing so it would signal to the Government not to give any rebates next year." The way the Straits Times handled this issue leaves very much to be desired. There was no apology by the Straits Times for misquoting my fellow unionist. Instead, the Straits Times gave the impression that it was Mr Nithiah who did not present his thoughts clearly in the first place. Sir, there are several other instances of this nature, but perhaps I could go on to another issue. Sometime ago, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the Straits Times to make a correction, instead of a clarification for misquoting me. We have said much about the need to inject professionalism at all levels. We must also not forget ethics. In putting Mr Nithiah Nandan in bad light and refusing to admit its own error, the Straits Times is guilty of unethical professional conduct. Sir, let me now move to another area of concern to trade unions and this concerns training. The Government deserves a pat on the back for its sound education policy. It has invested a lot of money in education up to tertiary level. The question is: should the Government continue to invest in the training of workers as well? I am not saying the Government has done nothing. Employers can apply to the Skills Development Fund to subsidise training of workers. But surely the Government can do more. Perhaps in the course of the budget debate, we will have opportunities to hear from the Government whether it has other plans to help promote training, especially among the older workers. While we have made tremendous progress in the economic and social fields, we still have people who earn relatively low incomes. How can we help these people break out of the poverty trap? Basically, there are two ways. One way is through education. This is by continuously improving our education system and by offering help to the lower-income families through schemes like Edusave and scholarships offered by grassroots organisations including trade unions. The second way is through continuous training of workers. Recently, Mr Lim Boon Heng, the Minister without portfolio and Secretary-General of the NTUC, caused a stir when he suggested metaphorically that degrees, diplomas and certificates had expiry dates. In an interview with NTUC News, Mr Lim said that he was not surprised by the reaction. It merely confirmed his worst fears that some people start to rest on their laurels after they finished schooling or university, and are unaware of the implications of the fast-changing technology. What we need to do is to develop a training culture which is so pervasive that a worker would feel left out if he is not attending some skills upgrading course on a continuous basis. NTUC can do its part. But the greater push must come from employers. On its part, the Government can help employers by granting generous tax incentives for workers' training. Sir, let me end by quoting what Mr Gary S. Becker said in an article on human capital and this was reflected in Business Week on Economic Viewpoint. I quote: `No nation can thrive in a modern world without investing in its people.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore faced the last economic recession in 1985. The recession prior to that was in 1975. If there was a belief of a 10-year economic cycle, there would have been one in 1995. But it did not happen. Instead, our economy grew steadily over the last 10 years with unusually high growth averaging 9.8% in the last three years. We succeeded because we learnt our lessons well from the 1985 recession. The measures taken then allowed us to take full advantage of the strong regional growth in recent years. What makes it all the more impressive is the successful operation of the flexible wage system tied to the economic growth. Inflation was also kept low. Unlike other countries that are having unemployment, we were able to create 105,900 jobs and the year before that, 70,000 jobs. Singaporeans should count their blessings in being able to find work after graduation and on leaving school. Even the Japanese today will envy us in our ability to provide jobs for our school leavers. Sir, the challenge facing Singapore in the next 10 years is not likely to be a recession but from the very intense global competition which we will ever encounter since independence. There is a need to re-visit the Singapore economy, its structure and directions. The technology and trade environment have changed radically, especially over the last few years. I am not sure whether all sectors of our economy have the same understanding and working in unison to ensure our success in this new competitive environment. I would suggest to the Government to revive the Economic Committee. With the participation of the public and private sectors and the trade union movement, we should be able to forge consensus as to where and how our economy should be heading. Sir, the Minister for Finance has explained quite convincingly of the need to price factors of production correctly to avoid wastefulness and over consumption. Therefore, the price of services like electricity has to be adjusted to reflect the true cost of production. I hope the Government will apply the same principles when paying compensation to property owners whose land has been acquired or will be acquired. The Government ought to compensate based on the up-to-date true replacement cost to lighten the burden of property owners who have to bear the cost of relocation to an alternative site. There is a similar risk that when land is acquired cheaply there is not the urgency to utilise the site, as seen in many land and properties left vacant and unused for many months after acquisition. I think the matter will be quite pressing when land is being acquired for the North-East MRT line. Sir, the Government has initiated reforms to the civil service to provide higher quality service at lower cost. This is done by giving civil servants more autonomy and be result-oriented. I support this pro-active attitude of the Government. This means that the whole corporate culture of the civil service will change. The faceless, cold efficiency of the past will be replaced by a more human face, and it will be communicative and responsive to the public needs. The civil servants are likely to project their individual personality in their work. I wish to ask the Minister if there is going to be a change in the tenure of employment of the civil servants in the autonomous agencies. In the nature of operations, civil servants are encouraged to carve a niche in their careers in the autonomous agencies. Presumably, there is better recognition for work performance in the specialised area and better promotion prospects in the autonomous agencies. With operating expenditures classified into running costs and transfers, the autonomous agencies will be able to use temporary help and out-sourcing the work if they are found to be cost effective to do so. It helps keep the Government expenditure down to economical level. Sir, my concern is whether the Government will continue to provide subsidies in public services already enjoyed by the public, especially the elderly Singaporeans. I hope the public will not be made to bear the true cost of services provided as income taxes have already been paid for them. Also, in the areas where there is possible direct competition with the private sector, will it cause the prices of such services to go up higher in the future at the expense of the members of the public? Sir, for the rest of the Budget, I have nothing more to add because it has been too generous for me to comment further.

Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Dr Hu, debate to be resumed, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes to Six o'clock pm.